By David Seymour
Wake up, Britain, the Daily Mail exhorts its readers and I agree. If the people of Britain woke up and voted the right way in the AV referendum, they would strike a terrific blow for democracy and plunge a dagger in the heart of the anti-democratic forces that are taking over the country.
Where the Mail and I part company is that they want a No vote while I want to say No to the Mail and the other right-wing papers, which means voting Yes to AV.
It is an inescapable fact that referendums, like by-elections, give voters the chance to cock a huge snook at whoever they feel like teaching a lesson at that time.
The politicians are so split on AV that snook-cocking is particularly difficult this time. UKIP supports AV, the BNP prefers to stick to first past the post. Half the Labour party wants change, the other half doesn’t. Clegg wants it, Cameron doesn’t. Both sides have uncomfortable bedfellows.
There is one group, however, which is completely united and that is the Tory press. All are hysterical in their insistence that changing the voting system would mean an end to democratic life as we know it.
The Mail, the Express, the Sun and the Telegraph are as one in pouring out bile towards the Yes lobby and screaming at their readers to save the nation from AV. Magna Carta, universal suffrage and human rights are as nothing compared with the sanctity of FPTP.
What’s their panic? The reality is that a) first past the post is an unfair system which results in millions of people in hundreds of constituencies rarely if ever having a vote that counts; and b) the difference which AV would make is marginal – only full PR will properly modernise our electoral system.
It is true that a Yes vote on May 5 will create problems for Cameron, but the Tory papers dislike him anyway, so they ought to be pleased if that happens. Yet they have worked themselves into a lather at the prospect of “losing” the referendum.
It isn’t as if the vast majority of their readers care. In the real world there are genuine political crises which are causing turmoil in people’s lives, though the papers don’t like to accept that. They continue to insist that all public spending is profligate and all public-sector employees are lazy, over-paid lead-swingers.
Perhaps the referendum is a surrogate issue for them to get their fangs into. But that doesn’t explain the passion and fury with which they are pursuing it.
Their arguments are laughable. They say AV is complicated. Not for anyone who can count it isn’t. They say it will cost millions. Why? They say it is unfair when it patently isn’t less fair than the current system.
They claim it will be a historic deviation from the great British electoral tradition. By that measure, we should take the vote away from women and anyone who isn’t a property-owner. (Incidentally, did you know the president of the Tea party thinks people who don’t own property shouldn’t have the right to vote)?
It is being increasingly recognised that the answer nowadays to the question “Who rules Britain”? is: the media. Particularly the Mail and Sun.
If they succeed in getting a No result on May 5, they will be smugly confirming their conviction in their divine right to rule.
But if we can get a Yes vote, just imagine the tantrums, the screaming, the carnage in newsrooms on May 6. It will make the Dacres even more furious and desperate, but we will have won a crucial battle for freedom against the Fleet Street tyranny and the wind will be with us for the really big wars ahead.
David Seymour was group political editor of Mirror Group Newspapers for 15 years.
Tags: AV referendum, David Seymour, media, Yes to AV
Really? We should make a decision as important as this on the grounds that it will upset a newspaper editor like Paul Dacre?
Of course, voting for AV would also “cock a snook” at Prezza and all the other Labour MPs who oppose it, so I’m not sure how even the most tribal lefty could take your argument seriously.
Of course, wanting to annoy some newspapers is a fantastically sensible and mature reason for making a major and revolutionary change in our institutions of democracy. I see it now, my gratitude to David Seymour, late of the Mirror Group, that shining fortress of political wisdom, for leading me to the light.
Actually, I’m confused as to why something that’s ‘only a bit more complicated’ and ‘won’t actually make that much difference’ is now suddenly a great idea. Perhaps we should be taking the lead and convincing others than Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Australia to introduce this system?
I am also slightly puzzled as to the relevance of the views of the ‘president’ of the Tea Party to British electoral arrangements – unless this is some sort of coded reference to the Coalition actually being a bunch of Rightist Republicans, infiltrated under deep cover several generations ago in order to have British passports and checkable political credentials?
Isn’t this tribal politics at its worst? You argument boils down to “I hate right wing papers, therefore we should do the opposite of whatever they say”.
Now, don’t get me wrong, the mail whips itself into a fury over all sorts of issues, and sometimes it is wrong, sometimes right… there have to be better ways to determine policy than see what the mail wants and do the opposite.
I’m an AV agnostic myself – neither side seems to me to have an compelling argument, and both sides are making wild claims that are almost certainly untrue. Neither side seems to admit that it won’t solve either of the two biggest problems in politics – safe seats, and excessively powerful whipping by the parties. PR solves one (safe seats) to an extent, but in doing so makes the other far harder (as the parties gain more control than ever of selection via party lists).
IMHO we should go with the US open primary model with voter political registration, but for some reason none of the parties seem to be keen on this – they are probably worried that the public would actually get candidates they wanted at Westminster via such a system, rather than stooges of the system…
Run the country solely to annoy the Daily Mail.
Of a keeping with an immigration quote unquote policy that stretched to ‘how can we most annoy the Tories’.
I see you took the Maxwell shilling. Did you have much to do with the beano-isation of the Mirror – once that great paper of the working man?
‘the beano-isation of the Mirror’.
Iain that’s a disgusting thing to say. I think you should apologise straight away.
To The Beano.
Perhaps, dear commentators, you would actually read the whole piece and engage your brains before commenting.
What I am saying is that the referendum gives us a chance to hit back at the Tory press which dictates so many of the policies foisted on the country.
If they can be beaten on this – which is a rare opportunity to answer them back – then maybe the Government and the Labour Party might realise that it isn’t necessary to meekly follow the dictats of the press on a whole range of issues because the Tory press don’t speak for the majority (though maybe they do for a minority of Labour UnCut readers).
I would like to agree with David Seymour here; the tangible benefits of changing to AV from FPTP are not huge, however the argument from the popular right wing press is centred on maintaining the status quo. That is to say maintaining the hegemony of the political and media class that exert an undue influence on the opinions of the electorate. So a vote for change is also a vote against that political and media class. The conservative elements of the Labour movement who want to retain FPTP do so because of the electoral advantage to be gained by the Lib-Dems in switching to AV (and therefore a loss to Labour), not because they believe it is essentially a fairer system. The Prole has a point that there are other ways in which we could get a more diverse parliamentary representation, but we are not being offered those. We are being offered a change that is probably not going to be very efficient and could, as Prescott fears, lead to the government being chosen behind closed doors in the sort of private deal-making that has led the coalition to breaking promises to all sides; but it would be change. I wouldn’t choose AV, but I might take it in preference to FPTP, if only for the sake of shaking up the system.
David Seymour sums up well why Labour voters (and everyone else) should vote Yes. Let’s ignore the positive arguments for AV (such as we could put our preferences and no longer need to tactically vote, more marginal seats, less safe seats etc.) and concentrate on why those on the Left should vote Yes. No 2 AV is led by Matthew Elliott former head of the Tory thinktank the Tax Payers Alliance, a man who believes State spending should be shrunk to below 35 % of GDP (he makes Osborne look like Tony Benn).
Elliott, campaigned for greater openess from the last Labour Government, but has yet to tell the electorate who the donors to No 2 AV are, something that the Yes Campaign has already done. What exactly is Elliott trying to hide? Maybe if it is shown that No 2 AV is a Tory front organisation, Labour supporters of No 2 AV will melt away, like snow in June?
In addition, as this article shows if Paul Dacre and the Tory Press are against something then all people on the Left should instinctively get suspicious. A Yes vote will damage the Coalition and will be the second election inside a year that Cameron has failed to win. This is our chance to wipe that smug grin from Cameron’s face.
@iain ker
At 1:37pm you said: “Did you have much to do with the beano-isation of the Mirror – once that great paper of the working man?
One minute later at 1:38pm you said “‘the beano-isation of the Mirror’. Iain that’s a disgusting thing to say. I think you should apologise straight away. To The Beano.”
WTF? Obviously, you tory trolls haven’t learnt from the time Grant Shapps got his sock puppets muddled up.
Have you seen this?
Former Australian PM John Howard being a bit puzzled by some of the questions from a BBC journalist:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12974935
“Australia’s voting system – which is compulsory and requires electors to rank all candidates – is explained by former PM John Howard.
He retells how a former PM managed to hang on to power with the support of second-preference votes, and how Australians are neither confused by their voting system or calling for a change.”
You’ll notice how the ignorant BBC woman starts:
“I know that you don’t have AV, you have this preferential vote system …”
I hope it works OK, I had to try twice to get it to run through.
Chris says:
April 6, 2011 at 9:31 pm
@iain ker
At 1:37pm you said: “Did you have much to do with the beano-isation of the Mirror – once that great paper of the working man?
One minute later at 1:38pm you said “‘the beano-isation of the Mirror’. Iain that’s a disgusting thing to say. I think you should apologise straight away. To The Beano.”
WTF? Obviously, you tory trolls haven’t learnt from the time Grant Shapps got his sock puppets muddled up.
*******************************************************
Oh dear… it’s what we in the comedy business refer to as a ‘device’.
Aye, not much gets past you and hits the wall 🙁
Nice one, Iain.
You *go*, girlfriend.
For me its simply a question of whether AV is a better system than FPTP. I don’t believe it is Thus I shall vote No
@iain ker & sock puppets
“we in the comedy business”
Now that is a joke.