by Kevin Meagher
At this time of year, it’s chilly up there on the moral high ground. But that isn’t stopping Yes campaigners for May’s referendum on the alternative vote (AV) donning their bobble hats and clambering up to pitch their tents.
They are doubtless buoyed by a poll in yesterday’s Independent on Sunday which showed 61 per cent of the electorate “could be persuaded” to make the change from first-past-the-post to AV.
This led some chap called Jonathan Bartley from the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign, to write to former Labour deputy leader, Margaret Beckett (who is President of No to AV) to demand “in sorrow rather than anger” that they hear “truthful and honest arguments” for the retention of FPTP in future.
That’s you told, Marge.
For huffy Yes-ers like Mr. Bartley, those staying loyal to our current first past the post (FPTP) system are “defending the indefensible”. FPTP, they argue, is “an analogue system in a digital age”. A strange comparison, I would have thought. Digital television is full of soft porn, repeats of Minder and shopping channels auctioning crappy jewellery.
Just because it’s shiny and new does not make it better.
Yes-ers also argue that under FPTP many votes are “wasted” if you happen to live in a seat with a fairly predictable outcome. Which is an emotive term for those voters who end up with an MP not of their liking. Of course, there’s a simple solution to that one: if it bothers you so much, move. Or persuade your neighbours. Problem solved.
Under the effulgent AV system “divisive or complacent candidates would tend to do badly – which is how it should be”. Labour’s campaign group had better watch out then. And greens are “divisive” in many people’s eyes. As are nationalists. Or even many independents. So much for political plurality then.
The Yes-ers also tell us that AV will give a big gee-up to listless MPs who take their parliamentary berths for granted. I’ll bet that’s a line they keep quiet about when giving their “key message” briefings to supportive MPs in safe-ish seats.
All of which echoes a rather strange remark in last week’s Independent on Sunday, in which a “Labour source” (yes, that cheeky Will-o’-the-wisp) purporting to speak for Ed Miliband declared that:
“Those opposing reform are from the old generation, rather than what some have called Generation Ed… Ed is prepared to work with Nick Clegg in the interest of something he believes in. This is what we mean when we talk about new politics.”
So it’s not enough for electoral status quo-ers to have a different opinion. Or even be a bit wrong in their opponents’ eyes. No, they are morally defective. Part of the “old generation” and not welcome in that shiny, modernist creed, otherwise known as “the new politics”.
This follows hot on the heels of our favourite pointy-heads at the IPPR who declared earlier this month that our existing electoral system is “broken”, arguing that first-past-the-post was designed for the age of two-party politics and not fit for a world where a third of votes in the 2010 general election were cast for parties other than Labour and the Tories.
Far be it from me to invade on the Lib Dems’ private grief, but it seems that if there was an election right now, the British public’s brief flirtation with three party, mould-breaking, pass-the-electoral-love-around-politics would disappear quicker than a chocolate éclair on Eric Pickles’ desk. Just look at all the polls. Any of them. Welcome back, two party politics; we’ve missed you!
That’s because, nowadays, not many people “agree with Nick”. Not unless the question is: “Shall I prostrate myself before you and wail from the pit of my soul that I am sorry”.
But the biggest canard of the Yes-ers is that there is some higher principle involved in this electoral switcheroo. There isn’t.
Even swivel-eyed electoral reform purists must surely recognise that no electoral system is perfect. Nick Clegg certainly does; infamously referring to AV as “a miserable little compromise” between FPTP and proportional representation. But that was PC: pre-coalition. Now he’s all loved-up with the idea of AV. And the Yes campaign talks of principle?
AV offers us a dull points verdict rather than the clear-cut knock-outs we get with FPTP. Stephen Hendry rather than Alex Higgins. A form of electoral spread betting rather than the simplicity of the national lottery.
Really, when all is said and done, what on earth could be easier than the person with the most votes winning?
The point is, first-past-the-post is still perfectly relevant. It delivers clear results and strong government. What is more, a blithering idiot can understand how it works. None of those things are as true with AV.
As the eminent constitutionalist Professor Vernon Bogdanor pointed out in the Financial Times: “AV opens the door to a new political world in which coalitions become the norm, and single-party majority government a distant memory.”
If Labour can win three thumping victories on the trot under FPTP and form majority governments, then why on earth change to a system that limits the prospect of ever doing so again?
And will the prospect of AV – and the permanent coalition government it brings – really provide the shot in the arm our politics is said to need; as hybrid governments, that nobody voted for, nestle down on the shredded copies of obsolete election manifesto commitments?
Doubt it.
Que sera, sera. If those of us who oppose AV are to have enforced membership of the reactionary “old politics” club foisted on us, then I have a feeling we will be afforded the consolation of being in good company.
Because when the opinion polls harden and those “persuadables” are left unpersuaded, they will at last kill the chattering class hardy perennial of electoral reform stone dead.
Kevin Meagher is a campaign consultant and former adviser to Labour ministers.
Tags: AV, AV referendum, Kevin Meagher
PR yes, this cock up, not a bloody chance.
Good old Labour/Tory conspiracy.
Let’s keep the corrupt and cosy system we’ve got.
Oldham & Saddleworth.
Labour MP elected with less than 20% of the vote?
Yeah
So we’re in a situation where the Lib Dems won’t even be a poitical force, yet we’ll also be in permanent coalitions…where FPTP produces strong governments and clear results while, well, not doing so.
This article is a master-class in tying itself in knots trying to cover off and negate every possible argument for AV rather than perform the task of actually defending FPTP in a logically coherent manner.
Love the part about yes-ers being the chattering classes by the way, not hint of irony with the style this article is written in 😉 Keep up the good work!
If the AV referendum passes, it’ll be because the no campaign couldn’t keep its mouth shut.
You’re right, AV isn’t great. But let the yes campaign prove that by the weakness of their arguments and limit yourself to fact-checking and positive arguments. Because that sneering tone is not a vote-winner.
Edward – sneering, moi? Physician heal thyself buddy!
Lee – The AV happy clappies are the ones who have to make the arguments for change. They are the ones foisting this unwanted referendum on us.
The ‘problems’ associated with FPTP do not warrant junking it for an alternative system and alternative problems.
The fundamental principle of the person with the most votes winning is so utterly transparent that even lab rats can understand it.
More parochially, Labour can win under FPTP and govern alone. The last 13 years have shown that. Strategically, then, why on earth change?
Especially when preferential voting allows two parties to encourage their supporters to operate ‘1,2’ arrangement, freezing out a third party. AV is tailor-made for the coalition’s (oops, Conservative-led government’s) longevity.
G. Tingey – And how precisely, good sir, will AV help electoral turnout?
G. Tingey; Ms Abrahams was elected with 42.1% of the vote; she was very duly elected, that’s a fact. Please use them.
AV dis-empowers the voter to a vile degree; under AV not only would we eliminate many of the small parties (for example Plaid would be completely wiped out) but you’d also force the more frequent need for a coalition.
How is any world fair, when the government can happily be formed by two opposing factions who simply made closed-door deals. Not only does this not represent the electorate, it also abuses members of the parties that form the coalition. When I vote, I vote for my party to achieve an outright government, not for some wimpering coalition in which my wants and policies are watered down or disregarded for compromise.
Actually Kevin I’m likely to vote no to AV. I just think this was a pointless and childish post that makes me a lot more likely to put a cross in the yes box.
Leave the arrogance, spite and knuckledragging behind. You have a winning argument without the childishness which defines this article – most notably in the title.
I read this article as I was trying to inform myself on the no v yes question and I have been pretty open-minded on the subject up to now. This article was referred to from the homepage of the notoav website. I felt compelled to post as this has actually swayed my opinion more to the yes vote than anything else. I don’t think you have done yourself any favours if you are trying to convince people to vote no.
David _ not trying to sway anyone – do what you like. I’ve absolutely no involvement in the No campaign. It’s up to you: If you want to see a permanent coalition government in this country then go right ahead vote yes for AV.
If you want to campaign for a majority Labour government, then keep the electoral system the way it is.
Why is the question of mandate not touched upon in this debate? In FPTP your vote gives your consent to the manifesto offered by that party and it is your hope that that party prevailing it will implement that manifesto. In AV id does not seem your vote does the same thing as while that may be the case with your first choice what is the implication when your second or third choice is used? If we do not vote by mandate, what do we hold our politicians to account by?