#Yes2AV
Well, Brits? Did you vote to improve the voting system, albeit shallowly and a hell of a lot less proportionately than the Lib Dems said they would stand for before the last election?
I know a lot of you didn’t and the polls are showing a near certain landslide vote against leaving First Past the Post, which has delivered a succession of unrepresentative governments since the year dot. But why would this be the case? I have a few suspicions:
- Contamination by Nick Clegg. The man (and his party) have become so fundamentally discredited in government, propping up the cuts-happy Tories (and particularly shattering higher education in Britain forever) that anything he wants will be hated by the public;
- The lies that the #No2AV campaign have spread have been believed by a gullible public, much of whom rely exclusively on the far right tabloids which dominate the British media. £250 million to implement AV? Bullshit – even New Labour throwback David Blunkett admitted the ‘No’ campaign has relied on a pack of lies;
- The electorate is scared of a system they’re told they don’t understand. Check this out though (via Anthony Smith’s blog):
How bloody difficult was that, eh? So we get back to the age old question: is an ingrained apathy leading to a broken politics, or are broken politics leading to apathy? Off of this I just can’t judge – why would a country which didn’t vote for David Cameron (or according to polls even want to tolerate) side with him in this? For that matter why is Cameron against it at all when he defeated David Davis for the Tory leadership through a form of AV?! Why should London not vote for it when they’ve benefited from it since 2000 in its Mayoral elections? It’s almost as if there are too many competing attitudes and narratives in play to motivate people with, and an accelerating disillusionment in any politics in the era of savage cuts.
I can’t deny should the vote be lost that I’ll be pretty fed up. After all the referendum is about creating a fairer voting system (and for those who bleat on endlessly about Vince Cable’s desire to use it to create a semi-permanent left-leaning electoral bloc in power, most people have never voted Tory ever) to reflect more closely the genuine wishes of the British people. We didn’t vote this appalling coalition in, and although AV would more likely end up with further coalitions (which under FPTP is going to keep happening anyway), they would less likely be overwhelmingly dominated and controlled by senior partners.
Finally I agree that the issue of how to get rid of incompetent/corrupt MPs should be high up the agenda, but that’s a separate issue. Fail to improve the voting system and watch an entire generation of young people walk away from parliamentary politics entirely, to the delight of the many MPs in safe (what a appalling idea) seats and, no doubt, the Metropolitan Police.
Can We Have Real Voting Reform Please?
Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MP attacks the mess all three main parties have got us into over the prospect:
The Conservatives don’t want to change the current system, and are allowing the referendum to shore up the coalition in the hope that the country will vote No. To them, AV is more acceptable than a genuinely proportional system because it minimises the risk of Ukip winning any seats at their expense. The Liberal Democrats have dropped STV, comforted by the fact that AV will benefit them more than anyone else. And Labour can drop its commitment to reform while blaming the government.
And it’s a joke. Labour went into the general election promising the alternative vote (AV) system at the very least in a referendum next year, the Lib Dems seemed pretty much fixated on STV as their price for entering any coalition and the Tories…the Tories of course are conservative and don’t like anyone messing with the status quo. Especially if it’s to their advantage. Now we have the Lib Dems abandoning all their core principles, the Tories trying to stab them in the back (with Clegg letting them know they can) and Labour using the debate to try to put them both on the back foot. It’s boring, it’s tedious and it’s robbing people of the enthusiasm which got sparked after the first televised election debate.
My own party, the Greens, supports the Additional Member System – a system which is more proportional but which maintains a constituency link. We’ll be deciding our position on AV at our forthcoming conference. But I believe that the most important priority is to give the public a real choice. Otherwise, people will remain cynical and disengaged. That is why I will be tabling an amendment in Parliament to rewrite the question to allow people to choose between AV, AMS, STV and the party list system, or to stick with first past the post.
And this I think is the issue. A referendum to decide on AV or not is a near-meaningless exercise. The chances of it being won are remote, the arguments behind voting reform are already getting lost once again, and the opportunities which were in our grasp last May could easily slip away, all because each of the main parties can’t see past their own short-term advantage. The broader argument over electoral reform should be available, with at least a major party articulating what the benefits would be to the political process itself. We continue to have the wrong people entering politics, and continuing to short up their professional careers and bank balances as the only regular outcome. That has to stop. AV won’t do it – Caroline Lucas is right, and her amendment should be given unconditional support. Maybe then we can return to political debate in this country rather than be led by the nose ever more by the Murdoch media and a still-supine BBC.
An Election About Voting Reform
Polly Toynbee makes an excellent case for making the general election all about reforming the voting system. Shame it won’t happen:
With a chance of a hung parliament, a Labour party sincerely committed to reform – not merely putting up a show bill it knew would fall – will be considerably more attractive to the Liberal Democrats. The Conservatives will never relinquish first-past-the-post, and Cameron couldn’t get such a change past his MPs if he tried. But he might consider that a referendum already on the statute book makes a deal with the Lib Dems easier. Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader, must stand his ground and demand full proportional representation without fearing that it makes him look self-interested. It’s the only hope on the horizon for political change. Conservatives had better stop warning that coalitions cause dangerous financial indecision: on the contrary, across Europe coalitions have created most financial stability with the broadest public agreement. Greece and Britain (with its IMF and ERM crises) are the ones with “strong” one party government.
Voting reform does mean turbulence and uncertainty for Labour, but most Labour MPs swallowed hard and voted for it, knowing that we can’t go on like this. It was a moment when Labour threw off some of its worst tribalism and opened the window to co-operation with others. Brown was accused of cynical positioning, but he can prove he is a serious reformer by making this his fight to the end, even at cost of losing other good bills. This is his legacy moment.
And it is a shame it won’t happen – a shame for all parties. I sincerely believe they’ve all underestimated the fury which remains out there about the expenses scandal, and of the political price which needs to be paid for that. But the thing is that there’s noone out there making the case for electoral reform to stop that sort of easy corruption happening again. Rather there is – pressure groups like Vote for a Change are doing sterling work – but the media on the whole are ignoring them, and there’s an easy case to be made in saying that it was the House of Commons’ traditions and culture which led directly to the expenses scandal; PR might never have made a difference. I don’t think that’s true, but I’m not hearing that one at all…
What someone needs to do is to show how stronger government (as Polly points out in her comments about Greece and Britain) does come from PR – Germany for example successfully absorbed a failed state after less than 30 years using PR; Britain in contrast has all three main parties now largely undifferentiated from one another, all offering a variation on a theme which noone even wants. Point out that discrepancy and see if electoral reform suddenly races up the list of priorities. Until then this will remain an idealistic article, which will fall on deaf ears.
How Do You Spell Chnage?
The Tories would have you believe that they’re interested in change, but the biggest stumbling block to MPs behaving better and actually representing people better is the first-past-the-post electoral system. David Cameron really wants to be Prime Minister by convincing the electorate that the Tories can deliver Obama-style change (and look just how much change he’s really brought in), but leaving the voting system unchanged will just continue to mean the same false priorities being chased: accommodating the poll-based whims of floating voters in marginal seats. It’s caused the rise of the BNP, it’s been at the root of the expenses scandal and has allowed New Labour’s surveillance agenda to pass through the Commons with barely a murmur. So if you feel ‘Dave’ is a better choice than so-called ‘bully’ Brown, just think about what change is actually needed before anything else. Get the right people in first or you might as well just not bother.
Cameron Has No Idea How to Restore Trust or Accountability
So the man styling himself as our next Prime Minister thinks that modernising our voting system is ‘crazy’. I think it’s quite revealing that he believes that a system genuinely representative of the people’s wishes (or in AV+’s case more representative) is a bad thing. Apparently the people must ‘feel like this is their parliament’, but actually making it more their parliament is out of the question. Cheers Dave, but the only way it can worry about what I worry about is if it represents me better than it does now. My MP is Joan Ruddock, who because she controls a safe Labour (or in her case New Labour) seat doesn’t have to represent my wishes at all; first-past-the-post sees to that. I’ve even debated my wishes with her, and she didn’t want to know; why should she? There’s no constitutional mechanism to make her. Cameron is right when he champions select committees to increase accountability within parliament – no question – but that can only be part of wider constitutional reform which includes a more proportional voting system. And the Commons should have more control over its timetable – the legislature genuinely does need its powers ramped up against the now almighty executive, but if the legislature doesn’t represent the people’s wishes better than it already does, that’ll only do so much good. If the new parliament’s concerns go no further than continuing to placate swing voters in marginal seats, noone’ll notice much difference. Willie Sullivan from Vote for a Change said:
“Under our current system, a nation of 45 million voters will leave it to a quarter of a million in the marginals to decide the outcome of the next election.
“It’s the equivalent of letting only people who live in Brighton decide the government of the United Kingdom. The question of who runs Britain is all our business, and for that we need a vote that really counts.
“Polls have shown time and again that people are prepared to break with the past.
“MPs can stick their fingers in their ears and pretend its business as usual, or they can help make 2010 the last broken election.”
It’s a great illustration of the representational failure at the heart of first-past-the-post. Intriguingly for the post-Brown era beginning in May, Foreign Secretary David Miliband said:
“We’ve still got a 19th century political system trying to address 20th century problems and in my book the whole system – the election to the Commons, the Lords, local government and how it’s organised, fixed terms parliaments – they should all be on a ballot.
“We should have what I would call a reset referendum that would reset the political system in a way that can actually address modern problems by getting power where it belongs, by checking power at the right places, by giving more rights and making sure rights of the individual are safe-guarded.”
Frustratingly though, other members of the parliamentary Labour Party don’t get it:
Labour former minister Tom Harris, MP for Glasgow South, raised laughter as he asked Straw: “Do you attribute the stainless reputation of Italian politicians to the fact that they have proportional representation?”
Of course PR (which wrongly isn’t on the table for this referendum) hasn’t saved Italian politics from total dysfunction, but the reasons for that aren’t down to the voting system. Take a look at Germany, which is also governed by a PR system. Their system has been a model for the Western world since 1949 – fairly representing the people has allowed them successfully to absorb a failed state (the GDR), their 5% representational threshold for parliament has made it hard for extreme parties to get into the Bundestag in the first place, and even when they’ve made it that far they’ve always fizzled out. Coalition politics and a culture of compromise has brought about remarkable stability, not to mention the necessary diversity into Germany politics. Britain, with first-past-the-post, has descended into complete ambivalence, and why not, when our elected representatives do whatever it takes to retain power, not to fulfill their side of the political contract?
The House of Commons voted 365-187 for a referendum on AV+ after the election, but it remains unclear if the bill will get passed before the general election in May.
David Cameron Offers No Change At All
Putative new Prime Minister David Cameron wants the electorate to think he offers Obama-style change (and look what happened there). Thoroughly disillusioned with New Labour, desperate for the change which Blair and Brown never delivered, the polls show the electorate thinks ‘Dave”s probably better choice; they’re not quite sure but they’re going to take the risk because he offers something genuinely new. They’re wrong:
After thirteen years of government, at least twelve in dedicated opposition to electoral reform, and just ninety days before a general election, he’s [Brown] suddenly decided to change the voting system.
But leave aside the cynicism of this move. Is it the right thing to do? I emphatically believe it’s not.
One of the things that works in our current system is that a general election gives people the power to get rid of tired, useless and divided governments like the one we have today.
The truth is that people don’t want a new voting system – they want a new politics.They want change across our entire political system – the way it’s run, the people who run it, where power lies, and how much it costs.
That’s why next Tuesday, instead of Labour’s fiddling with the voting system, we will table an amendment cutting the size of the House of Commons and the cost of politics.
We will call for a ten per cent reduction in the number of MPs. And we will call for a change in the boundary commission with a view to levelling up the size of all our constituencies so that every vote weighs the same.
Cutting the cost and size of the House of Commons will address the symptoms of what has gone wrong in our politics, but we need to address the causes too.
People are fed up of feeling that Parliament is a powerless poodle, that politicians cannot change things, and that power is always being drained away from them.
Of course there are a number of arguments he’s making, whilst attempting to conflate them into one. People are fed up with the centralisation of politics, from the increasingly insidious database state through to the inefficient centralised control of the public services, people are indeed fed up that power is being drained away from them. Parliament is supposed to be the instrument through which the people have their say, yet the executive under Blair (and no less so under Brown) has become almighty – still prepared to sidestep the parliamentary process, still eager to put through Extradition Acts without a vote, and still eager to rig control of select committees. Who needs oversight after all, when you know you’re right? I’ll look at that in another blog post later today.
But Cameron’s argument is also self-serving – he suggests the failures of the political system are technocratic – save a little money here, cut the number of MPs there, manage the Commons a little better. It makes sense for him not to investigate the system’s failings too much when ultimate power is in his reach, but he wilfully ignores the fact that the voting system is unrepresentative of the people’s wishes. Merely cutting the cost and size of the Commons won’t address the fundamental problem of first-past-the-post drawing the wrong people in, and forcing them because of electoral arithmetic to ignore the wishes of the majority, instead catering only to a small number of floating voters in marginal constituencies. Making the intake into the Commons more representative must be the first of a number of steps to reengage the political system with the electorate – people realise that being able to change governments every 4-5 years isn’t enough, that there’s no other way to hold MPs to account, and that MPs in ‘safe’ seats needn’t invariably worry about their jobs at all; why should anyone other than their supporters bother to vote in such constituencies anyway? A genuinely proportional system would address this democratic deficit, and despite the normal complaints about countries such as Italy showing PR doesn’t work, the truth is for every Italy we have a Germany, which successfully absorbed a failed state without either the system falling apart or even significant social unrest.
Would a more proportional system allow the BNP into Westminster? Sure, probably. But if those are the wishes of the majority then that’s fine. We’ve seen throughout the world too though that when extremists enter a democratically elected lower house in a stable system with checks, balances and a free media, that they invariably fall away; Germany’s proven that too. So Nick Griffin would become an MP – so what? The number of Green MPs would impress everyone, and provide the backbone for healthy coalition governments of the future. That would change the entire tone of British politics, and how they’re conducted – that’s real change. Would AV+ address this current democratic deficit? In the first instance probably not, but pulling off AV+ would show the electorate that changing the voting system wouldn’t bring the damnation and ruin which Cameron and others have suggested. It may not be a talking point on doorsteps, but that’s never how progressive politics should be run. Our leaders must voluntarily relinquish power back to the people in order to stop the slide which has begun under New Labour. Cameron does appreciate this, but isn’t prepared to put his money where his mouth is for half the argument.
One MP to Kill Constitutional Reform?
The closer we get to the general election, the further the government is buying its head in the sand. After paying lip service to electoral reform, following the expenses scandal, with vague promises of a referendum on AV+ after the election, they seem to think the public has their eye off the ball on the other, equally vital changes needed:
Proposals for reform were drawn up by a cross-party committee set up on the instruction of Gordon Brown at the height of the expenses scandal, who said changes were needed to restore trust in politics.
The committee, chaired by the Labour MP Tony Wright, recommended electing select committee chairmen and members and a new committee to decide non-government business.
Ms Harman has been lukewarm about the proposals since they were published last year, suggesting that they can only be implemented on the basis of “unanimity”. Now members of the committee have been told that the Government is preparing to allow a debate on February 23 and a vote on the proposals. The Government has decided to table an “unamendable order” — which will mean that an objection from a single MP will prevent any of the measures from being introduced. This is almost certain to happen since there is a hardcore minority against the proposals.The Government denies blocking reform but Labour sources believe that Nick Brown, the Chief Whip, is leading the opposition to the plans and has persuaded Ms Harman to join him.
Now clearly suicidal, they’re chasing one another off the proverbial cliff. It’s worth remembering just how vital some of the rest of these reforms are – the Iraq War and other abuses under New Labour didn’t happen just because of the government’s wishes. The executive wasn’t constrained by the Commons – they’re all institutionally complicit in the war, extraordinary rendition, the Extradition Act, torture, you name it. To then walk away from genuine reform would be the biggest abuse of all.
A Cynical Referendum by a Cynical Party
There will be a referendum after all, to replace Britain’s first-past-the-post electoral system, which allows a party to become the government, even though a majority of voters have voted for someone else:
Jack Straw, the justice secretary, will introduce the change in an amendment to the constitutional renewal bill. This will amount to paving legislation for a referendum on whether to introduce AV, to be held no later than October 2011.
Ministers, who agreed the move at a meeting of the cabinet’s democratic renewal committee (DRC) yesterday, believe that the prospect of a referendum will have three key benefits. It will:
• Allow Labour to depict itself at the general election as the party of reform in response to the parliamentary expenses scandal.
• Make David Cameron look like a defender of the status quo. The Tories, who are opposed to abolishing the first-past-the-post system, would have to introduce fresh legislation to block the referendum if they win the election.
• Increase the chances that the Liberal Democrats will support Labour – or at least not support the Tories – if no party wins an overall majority at the election, resulting in a hung parliament. The Lib Dems have traditionally regarded the introduction of PR as their key demand in any coalition negotiations. While AV does not technically count as PR, many Lib Dems regard AV as a step in the right direction.
I’m not happy with the idea of AV, when AV isn’t really any more proportional than first-past-the-post. And it does look like a sickeningly cynical manoever, although if they manage to keep the referendum in place if/when they lose the election, it will indeed be quite an impressive achievement. Someone at least has understood that they have to present themselves as a party prepared to embrace change, but if this is as far as they’re prepared to go down that road then even then it doesn’t even count as a half measure. Britain’s surveillance culture is now completely out of control – we’re well down the road of everyone having to be checked so that they’re not a paedophile, merely in order to get a job. We’re in a time when photographers snapping a sunset are being stopped by police for fear of being terrorists, and when a government with a track record of screwing up databases reserves the right to hold on to your DNA, even if you are innocent of a crime. If they’re unprepared to think about tackling these terrible civil liberties and human rights abuses and are using a referendum promise to distract our attention, and to outflank the Tories for future electoral gain, then they really aren’t interested in change at all. I agree with Stephen Tall, who says:
Labour has had 12 years in which to renew the democratic fabric of this country. They failed to do anything about it because, quite simply, they didn’t care enough about it. If they care now, it is only because it’s expedient to; and expediency is the worst possible motive for reform.
A Failure of a Queen’s Speech
The expenses scandal brought the political process to the brink of collapse, but Gordon Brown seems to think no legislative action is needed to restore the relationship between the electorate and our representatives. Sir Christopher Kelly, tasked with fixing the expenses system, argued:
fresh legislation would be needed to strengthen July’s Parliamentary Standards Act, which established the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa). “It is disappointing therefore that the Queen’s speech did not contain measures to address the changes we believe to be necessary affecting the remit, powers and independence of the new body being established to regulate expenses,” Kelly said.
Brown however disagrees:
Downing Street insisted the most dramatic changes to the MPs’ allowance system proposed by Kelly could be implemented without a parliamentary vote, and any further legislation required would be brought forward on a cross-party basis as and when it was needed.
Talk about kicking it into the long grass. Of course reform of the expenses system itself is only a part of the problem, and Brown completely ignored the need for electoral reform as well. His Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill might tinker with the House of Lords, would finally reform the abusive SOCPA legislation limiting the right to protest near Parliament, but there’s no word on a referendum to change the voting system – not even on the constitutional convention which would be needed in advance of a referendum. There’s a Citizen’s Convention Bill knocking around the Commons, but Brown prefers vague promises of a referendum after the election – great, but Cameron isn’t. And considering Blair and Brown kicked the Jenkins Report into touch after winning an unassailable majority in 1997, why should Brown even be trusted to deliver if he won?
Polly Toynbee perhaps puts it best:
Missing was the bill that was the one bold act that could have changed the argument at the next election: a referendum on proportional representation would have been a cause to bring back erstwhile Labour voters, leaving Cameron defending an indefensible system. Like Blair before him, Brown bottled it, too much the old tribalist for real reform – and Labour may come to regret that most bitterly of all.
The effect of electoral reform and a more proportional system, would be to create a different kind of parliament in a post expenses world, she claimed. “A more proportional system is more voter sensitive and more voter reactive system than we have at present.”
Of course she’s right but seems to have been overruled. Her boss clearly still doesn’t understand the severity of the problem which has happened on his watch, which he in large part was responsible for. He has an opportunity right now to clear it up or at least to put the building blocks together to show the electorate he understands their disengagement, but he’s completely bottled it. Again. The electorate is looking to MPs to show they understand that fundamental change is needed in the way the Commons does business, how it’s composed and how representative it is, but the Queen’s Speech doesn’t offer any change at all. Brown will lose the election, Cameron will flatly ignore any mention of a referendum, when he could have been put in a very difficult situation indeed by an election day referendum.
Our Undead Democracy
Last Friday Vote for a Change held a protest outside the Houses of Parliament in support of a more proportional voting system. The zombie theme was supposed to signify that our voting system is dead but going on anyway and destroying our democracy in the process. If you support a referendum for proportional representation to be introduced as the UK’s voting system click here.
The Vote for a Change Debate
Come back here from 1915 BST to see my liveblog of Vote for a Change’s debate at the Houses of Parliament tonight. One side will support reform to a more proportional voting system, the other will support the status quo – first past the post. Comments will be extremely welcome here and on the liveblog as I go, and if I figure it out in time you should be able to tweet to the liveblog too.
Should be lively, and should be interesting.
The Gravy Train
Vote for a Change’s Gravy Train is travelling between constituencies, to inform people about their campaign for a referendum to decide for us to decide how we choose our politicians, rather than leaving it to the politicians:
I think Sal Brinton is right when she says that our current voting system too often means MPs know they aren’t going to be thrown out by their constituencies if they don’t represent them adequately – it’s contrary to what democracy is supposed to be about and people are stopping voting because of it. We need to move to a proportional system of representation urgently to make every vote count. Call for a referendum here. You want it? Make it happen.
Oh and tell Vote for a Change here where you think the Gravy Train should visit next. Your constituency?
Come to the Voting System Debate!
Vote for a Change have arranged a debate in Portcullis House next week between those advocating radical change and those supporting the first-past-the-post system.
It’s at 1930 on the 13th October. Click here to secure your seat!
Three Party Politics is Dead
Vernon Bogdanor claims three party politics is over, but that our first-past-the-post is masking our perception of it:
There has been a prodigious alteration in the public perception of parties, but it remains unnoticed because the electoral system fails to register it. The system refracts rather than reflects opinion, emphasising the major party vote and de-emphasising the vote for minor parties and independents. It enables Westminster to remain a closed shop, so allowing the major parties to postpone confronting the crucial question of how they are to regain their lost members and voters.
Fragmentation has already led to calls to open up the system. In 2007, Gordon Brown offered government posts to Liberal Democrats and to those of no party affiliation; and Labour seems to be edging towards a referendum on electoral reform. The Conservatives instituted an open primary in Totnes to replace Anthony Steen. To require the parties to hold primaries would open up candidate selection, while a more transparent electoral system would allow the Commons to reflect opinion more accurately.
I don’t agree with Bogdanor’s thesis about primaries. Whilst I think it would open up candidate selection, it would likely be within a perilously narrow band. I do agree though that the days of big party dominance are largely over. The nature of large parties is to appeal to a large demographic and to maintain a broad church of agreement, but this is clearly no longer appealing to large portions of the electorate, whose needs are falling through the cracks of this compromise – see the rise of the Greens, the sudden rise of the Pirate Party, and the historically high profile of the BNP. The reasons for the ‘broach church’ compromise being over are probably many, but chiefly in the UK right now it’s down to the failure of the first-past-the-post voting system. As the larger parties have competed for an ever smaller band of swing voters in order to get elected, they have largely walked away from conviction politics; Bogdanor is right – take a look at the membership of traditional parties and you’ll see that doesn’t suit the majority. Their choice is to allow a referendum on proportional representation to allow people’s interests represented as they are rather than how traditional parties would like them to be, which would allow them to find a new role in 21st century political life, or to continue to wither and die and be responsible for the total atrophying of British political life.
(image from Cartoon Life)
