This vote will not unite progressives
Bubble — By Anthony Hunt on July 6, 2010 7:00 am
Can the proposed AV referendum win support from other parties?
PERHAPS the most obvious sign of the Tories running rings round their coalition partners is the way that Lib Dem Ministers have been placed in front of cameras and microphones to deliver blow after blow of bad news, naively believing that they were there to do anything other than doing the Tories’ dirty work while shielding Cameron and Osborne from the full force of public reaction. But it’s on the issue of electoral reform that the Lib Dems are really being sold down the river.
AV is a good thing. It retains the link between members and their constituencies, while enabling the electorate to make a more sophisticated choice on their ballot paper and more or less ending the debate on tactical voting. Supporting the campaign for a yes vote ought to be easy, but this government is doing its best to make it tough.
In introducing a single Bill, the government is attempting to bundle the issue of AV in with its rag-bag of partisan and highly suspect “reform” measures. The dodgy 55% attracted much-deserved criticism from across the political spectrum, and concerns are now rising that the Government will try to stuff the Lords with Tory and Lib Dem peers to give them a majority in the Upper House.
The government has also been particularly brazen about its partisan, populist and ill-thought out plans to change constituency boundaries in a way that would benefit the Tories and weaken Wales’ voice in Parliament. Communication with the Welsh Assembly Government seems to have been particularly poor, especially given the potential impacts on the Assembly of changing the number of Parliamentary constituencies in Wales. And as Chris Bryant and others pointed out yesterday, retaining the same number of Ministers while reducing the number of backbench MPs is a deliberate blow to those who want better scrutiny of the Executive by the Legislature. The government also seem to be conveniently ignoring the 3.5 million adults entitled to vote but not on the register, largely in more deprived areas often represented by Labour MPs. It’s not exactly a program of “reform” to get any left of centre progressive excited.
What’s more, Monday’s statement confirmed that the AV referendum will be held on the same day as our Assembly elections. This totally ignores the advice given by a raft of politicians and experts from across the political spectrum when the date of a primary powers referendum was debated.
Perhaps Nick Clegg didn’t know about that controversy – maybe Kirsty should have got on the phone? It certainly seems communication with the devolved administrations has been severely lacking. It would have been nice to have at least spoken with the Assembly before landing them with a referendum on their polling day. Alas the respect agenda on devolution, she lasted but a few weeks. I wonder what the government will do if the Devolved Administrations voice their concerns about the referendum date?
Take this with a pinch of salt if you will, but the point is that to win a referendum on AV, especially in the teeth of well-organised Tory opposition, the Lib Dems will need the support of progressives from across the political spectrum. But the way this vote is being packaged, they risk losing that support.
Which should get the Lib Dems wondering. Because it’s becoming clear that they are being stitched up by the Tories on electoral reform. Clegg and co. may herald the chance of a referendum as if it was a success in itself, but it is not. Because if a referendum is called and lost, the cause of electoral reform of any kind will be set back by a generation. Which, coincidentally is exactly what the Tories want. The LibDems should think about that, and wonder if they are deliberately being sold down the river . What they should certainly be doing is looking to build a progressive consensus for reform, instead of proposing a set of reforms that only alienate and divide.
On voting reform, the Liberal Democrats have been sold a pup – a referendum on something their Leader called a “miserable compromise” before the election, without even as much as an undertaking by Cameron and his Ministers to stay neutral, let alone campaign for a yes vote.
Tags: constitutional reform, electoral reform, Liberal Democrats, referendum
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
15 Comments
Yes, good article. You’re right. I think the clincher that it’s a crap idea is that John Bufton of UKIP has written in to the Mule this morning saying it’s a good idea.
I’ll just say this though – Chris Bryant may be right in principle about MPs’ scrutiny of the legislature, but his own record as a Blairite nodding dog (war, ID cards, Trident, etc) makes him pretty ill-suited to make this particular point.
If we vote “no” electoral reform is thrown onto the scrapheap for the next 50 years.
Anybody who thinks of themselves as remotely “progressive” has no option but a “yes” vote.
And I don’t care what day the referendum is held on, I’m not thick and I can manage more than one ballot paper, thanks very much.
“Take this with a pinch of salt if you will, but the point is that to win a referendum on AV, especially in the teeth of well-organised Tory opposition, the Lib Dems will need the support of progressives from across the political spectrum. But the way this vote is being packaged, they risk losing that support.”
Well, this is one progressive who dislikes AV with a passion but until yesterday wasn’t tempted to do much about it. Bundling the AV referendum in with an Assembly election has changed my mind on that passivity.
“On voting reform, the Liberal Democrats have been sold a pup – a referendum on something their Leader called a “miserable compromise” before the election, without even as much as an undertaking by Cameron and his Ministers to stay neutral, let alone campaign for a yes vote.”
I agree. The phrase “miserable compromise” will haunt this referendum campaign. And sums up my position entirely.
Lyndon wrote: “If we vote “no” electoral reform is thrown onto the scrapheap for the next 50 years.”
Then maybe we shouldn’t be wasting a referendum on such a miserable compromise?
Patrick:
“I think the clincher that it’s a crap idea is that John Bufton of UKIP has written in to the Mule this morning saying it’s a good idea.”
Has he? No self-interest involved ther I’m sure! So I’m either going to be voting the same way as Bufton or David Cameron. There really is no escape…
Lyndon
“Anybody who thinks of themselves as remotely “progressive” has no option but a “yes” vote.”
But that’s the problem – if the LibDems had been wise about the issue of electoral reform and kept AV as a freestanding issue, you may have a point. But I don’t think I can agree with your statement as the whole reform package currently stands, as there’s lots I find distasteful from a progressive standpoint within it. And yes, the LibDems actions do threaten a no vote that will set back the issue of electoral reform by a generation – that’s why their approach is so wrong.
“And I don’t care what day the referendum is held on, I’m not thick and I can manage more than one ballot paper, thanks very much.”
The argument is not about what people can or can’t manage – it’s about the skewing of the whole process if it is coterminous with another election, in terms of campaigning and coverage of the issue. If we’re to hold referenda on matters like this, we should do all we can not to impede giving the electorate the chance to make the most informed choice possible, and I tghink holding it on the same day as the Assembly elections is unwise because of that.
Daran:
“The phrase “miserable compromise” will haunt this referendum campaign.”
Indeed Daran – I’m thinking of writing a book for Christmas entitled “Quotes that have come back and hit Nick Clegg in the face”. He’s performed so many about-turns in the last couple of months that I think it may have to run to two volumes, so I hope your Christmas stocking is big…
Occasional WalesHome columnist Rene Kinzett also makes some interesting points over on his blog spot on Think Politics
http://thinkpolitics.co.uk/tpblogs/renekinzett/2010/07/05/av-or-bust/
“At the time of Brown’s (political) deathbed conversion to electoral reform, I urged Conservative MPs, even those (admittedly very few) who believed in electoral reform, to vote AGAINST the Bill to bring about a referendum on the Alternative Vote (AV).
“Let me be clear. I oppose the current First-Past-The-Post system and I suppose some people would say that I should welcome any reform and embrace the proposals to move away from FPTP as being at least a ”step in the right direction”.
“But, I am afraid to say, my view remains that the proposals for a referendum on AV is a sham and a missed opportunity for real reform. The Alternative Vote is a sham of a compromise. It does not tackle the fundamental problems associated with the current FPTP system and indeed embeds them further. The result of an AV election is not proportional to the votes cast across the country and the system offers no more choice to the elector and instead still invests most power with the political party machine.
“For those keen on the “first step” to real reform and who are minded to press their MP to vote for an AV referendum, they should remember that the 1911 Parliament Act, designed as a temporary measure to allow the passing of the ”People’s Budget”, before more radical reform of the Lords could be brought forward, has been with us now for nearly a century.
“Let us not go forward with a reform we will regret. I want to see real pressure applied to the leadership of my Party to support fair votes and to be persauded of the case for electoral reform as part of a wider agenda to return power to the people. I am hoping that the Liberal Democrats will at least bring forward an amendment to the AV Referendum Bill and propose that the question posed to the people is at least a choice between FPTP and AV+, which will at least bring about a more proportional result and create a more pluralist House of Commons.”
I am minded to abstain from the AV vote.
What perhaps astounds me more than anything about this coalition was summed up by the two statements yesterday. One on electoral reform, one on slashing the budget for school building and improvement projects. If the first is meant to be the payback for the LibDems in exchange for supporting the latter, they have sold themselves very short indeed.
What did someone once say about ‘politics being the art of the possible’? AV might not be perfect but as the FT argues this morning it is ‘better than what Britain has now,and would be a way to refresh and renew political life’. Those who support STV have to realise that it is a non starter given the attitude of the majority of MPs who believe that there is still a need to keep the link with a single constituency. In those circumstances you either accept the status quo of FPTP or vote for a system which will at least increase the legitmacy of our elected representatives. There are those in the Labour Party who oppose the change yet are quite prepared to use a variation for internal elections. If FPTP is so wonderful why isn’t it being used for the Leadership election which could easily be decided by the second preferences of the bottom three candidates?
The Prescott argument of using the referendum to give the Coalition a ‘bloody nose’ is infantile politics which is not going to go down well with many ordinary voter. It’s typical of the attitude which turned so many people off Labour and led to just 29% of the electorate sticking with Labour on May 6 th. There is really no evidence to also suggets that a defeat for AV could lead to the collapse of the Coalition . It could just as easily drive Liberal Democrats further into the arms of the Tories. Whoever the new Leader fof the Labour Party is after September has to devise a far more mature way of dealing with the Liberal Democrats who after all could be needed by Labour in the future. It might make great street theatre but the attacks on the LIberal Democrats could end up coming back to haunt Labour in 2015. Although some Liberal Democrats might peal away in the next few years the odds are that the bulk of the Parliamentary party will stick with the Coalition to the bitter end in the hope of better economic news being around by at least 2014. If you believe that AV is an improvement on FPTP then the answer is to vote ‘yes’ on May 5th next year. Voting no for short term political gain or because you are not happy with the clash of dates or want STV could perhaps be described as an example of ‘cutting your nose to spite your face’ politics.
On the equalisation of constituencies I can quite understand the opposition of sitting MPs who will face an uncertain future because of the reduction in Welsh MPs from 40 to 30. To argue that somehow this change is ‘gerrymandering’ is,however, going way over the top again. After all it is one of the points of the People’s Charter. Welsh ironworkers and coalminers died in Newport in 1839 for equal constituencies. Anyone who believes in fairness can not support a situation where some MPs in Wales represent less than 50000 voters whilst others in England represent over 100,000. Arguing that nothing should change until the 3.5 million not on the register is dealt with is a red herring. They can all be on the register but for some reason they believe that having the ability to vote is not important. If an MP is so concerned about this then the obvious answer is to move an amendment to the bill which would make non registration a criminal offence!
A reduction in the number of Welsh MPs is an inevitable consequence of devolution. The only UK party which has an interest in the status quo was obviously the Labour Party. the reduction of seats in WAles by 10 and Scotland by 8 doesn’t help the chances of a Labour majority. Both the Tories and Liberal Democrats went into the election on May 6 th committed to the reduction in the number of MPs. No one should therefore be surprised that they are going to legislate to put their manifesto committent into practice.
Who knows it might also might lead to the reform of the voting system for AMs and the introduction of a more democratic method of electing all the AMs so that they are directly accountable. Again I would have thought that it was possible for a Welsh MP to move an amendment which would repeal the clauses of the Wales Act concerning electoral arrangements and give the power to the Assembly to devise a new system for the 2015 election.
Jeff
I agree with all of this. Surely it is actually in the long term interests of Labour to support AV given that it will become suddenly much much more difficult to get an overall majority in Westminster on FPTP with reduced Scots and Welsh representation and equalised consituencies all round?
Can anyone tell me which party had AV in their manifesto?
Yes, Labour. Who were beaten quite clearly by the Conservatives (who offered no voting reform), who are now in coalition with the LibDems (who never promised AV).
Only this week Alun Davies AM tweeted to vote against AV, which two months after it being a Labour manifesto committment, is testament to how much Labour actually wanted AV.
The problem is not solved AV – proportionality is the problem. AV solves none of the underlying issues of people’s votes not being equal, majority government with minority votes and overly safe seats.
The Tories are trying everything they can to undermime the Yes campaign, and the Lib Dems dont seem to notice it. With holding it on the same day as important elections in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, that effectively rules out any party wanting to seriously campaign on AV in those countries, which will mostly affect Plaid, the SNP and the Northern Irish parties. Proposing it along side plans to gerrymander seats, increasing the number of Tory and Liberal Democrat lords, will annoy Labour supporters.
In any case, the article has it bang on.
A “no” vote may well mean that electoral reform goes off the agenda for a long time, but the key to this is the extent to which the Liberal Democrats are in government after the current term. If the UK parliament reverts to majority government then the question goes away because neither Labour nor Conservatives wants it. For that reason the Liberal Democrats think this may be their only chance at electoral reform and for that reason they have sold short.
Nevertheless AV is a dud. Rallings and Thrasher have shown that it can be even more disproportionate than FPTP.
STV does retain a constituency link – bigger constituencies with multiple members but that in no way diminishes the link. Multi-member divisions are commonplace in local government.
I agree that the Prescott argument is “infantile politics” but then Prescott is an infantile politician. Why anyone took notice of what he had to say when an MP is beyond me, much more why they should take notice of him now that he’s not
The reduction in the number of Welsh MPs as part of the overall reduction in the size of Westminster is separate from the question of reducing MPs following devolution and also separate from the question of equalising constituency size and we shouldn’t allow the government to get away with shoving all three issues through on one argument
Of course, if the numbers are reducing in Westminster overall then Wales must bear a share of that reduction. However the reduction is about 7-8% UK wide but 25% is being talked about in Wales. Reduction as a consequence of devolution is dependant on Westminster’s powers being transferred to the Assembly. Until fairly recently Westminster retained all or most of its powers over Wales and very little has been transferred since the Government of Wales Act 2006, arguably not nearly enough to justify a reduced voice for Wales at Westminster. As far as equalising size is concerned, Wales have traditionally had smaller constituencies in order to ensure more numbers in Westminster since Wales is such a small part of the UK, and indeed there was at one time, and may still be for all I know, a legal minimum number for Welsh MPs at Westminster.
Scotland has already seen a reduction in the number of MPs because of devolution. The present proposals will see the number of Scottish MPs fall from 59 to 51. I think it used to be well over 70. A consequence of more powers which every party in the Assembly supports is less MPs. Eventually the Secretary of State will go as well. It’s one of the reasons why many Labour MPs have been sceptical about the transfer of more powers. Stopping the reduction in the number of MPs was one of the main driving forces behind the dog’s breakfast 2006 Act, which is a pretty poor piece of legislation. The architects behind the Act expected the LCO system to last for years or at least until they were no longer involved in active politics. The creation of the One Wales coalition and a referendum by 2011 was never part of this scenario. For the Tories, a yes vote next year, which will provide further evidence that Wales needs fewer MPs, is a no brainer. As a Unionist party their aim is to keep together the UK and the development of politics in Wales in recent years shows that despite the worries before 1999, devolution is not some slippery slope to independence.
More powers to the Assembly also is a key part in any cuts strategy which involves passing down difficult decision making to other political institutions. The fact that Canada was a federal state made it much easier for the Canadian Liberals to implement their deficit reduction programme in the 1990s. The actual cuts were not made by the Liberals in Ottawa but by their Tory opponents in the provinces. Exactly the same scenario will happen in Wales, where the cuts fall in many service areas in Wales will be the responsiblity of the Assembly not the UK government. If your local leisure centre closes it will be partly due to the fact that the Assembly might have decided to ring fence health or school budgets. Unlike the 1980s it will not be a simple matter of blaming the Tories in London.
The return of the £200 million underspend was another very clever move by the Coalition. It showed that the Assembly was not spending the money it already had and it also poses the question of why didn’t a Labour government carry out such a policy move. It also allows the UK government to ask, when the going gets tough and Assembly members complain about the cuts, ‘What happened to the £200 million extra?’. At this stage of the game the Coalition for various reasons is winning the spin as Labour is distracted by a leadership election which isn’t exactly setting the world on fire.
People might not be interested in AV but I doubt whether they will go to the barricades because Wales will have 10 fewer MPs in 2015. As far as many voters are concerned we already have too many full time professional polticians. Another 10 less wouldn’t cause many to lose much sleep. Instead of arguing against the principle of reduction which will not be successful given the Coalition majority in Parliament, sensible politicians should instead be looking at the combinations which maximise the advantage to their party and ensures that after 2015 they are still an MP.
Marcus:
“Can anyone tell me which party had AV in their manifesto? Yes, Labour. Who were beaten quite clearly by the Conservatives (who offered no voting reform), who are now in coalition with the LibDems (who never promised AV).”
Your point is? This article, therefore, is by a Labour member arguing that he agrees with his party’s manifesto but is concerned about the added baggage of reforms which are being tacked onto the Bill and which certainly weren’t in our manifesto. I don’t see much inconsistancy there. Please try to debate with an open mind rather than straining to turn everything into a point against the party that until recently you were a member of. It makes you seem bitter.
“Only this week Alun Davies AM tweeted to vote against AV, which two months after it being a Labour manifesto committment, is testament to how much Labour actually wanted AV.”
No it isn’t – it’s a testament to Alun’s personal views about this particular set of proposals, which are valid and he is entitled to have. Alun has his own brain and is entitled to think for himself – surely a good thing in an elected politician.
Geraint: “The Tories are trying everything they can to undermime the Yes campaign, and the Lib Dems dont seem to notice it.”
Spot on – watching the Assembly debate yesterday, I was amazed by Kirsty’s contribution and wonder how long they can defy logic and believe that they’re doing well out of this deal – a referedndum on a ‘miserable compromise’ that their coalition partners will actively try to wreck, in return for supporting a massively right-wing, regressive cuts agenda. Just how is that a deal that anyone vaguely progressive or left-of-centre in the LibDems could consider a good one?
Davey:
The points you make about AV against STV are valid – I don’t happen to be convinced myself, but it is a valid argument made by a lot of genuine progressives, including many LibDems – until last month perhaps? You also make good points about their attack on Welsh representation.
But I can’t agree with this: “I agree that the Prescott argument is “infantile politics” but then Prescott is an infantile politician.” He’s not – Ali Campbell got it about right when he said that Prescott is significantly underrated because of his interesting relationship with the English Language. From my experience, Prescott was an integral and essential part of the Labour Party and Government for over a decade, and I’ve often been angered by posh media types who snobbily mock him or ignore his talents because he is not one of them. We need more people like that in politics, not fewer.
Yawn another reference.
The point is simple – Labour were the only promising AV, and they are divided.
Alun Davies’ opposition is case in point.