Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011

[Spanky Longhorn]

Actually yes sort of, but not elected.

So you admit there is not what I described in Belgium?

 

[articul8]

putting a nice hat on the political system not only won't change anything substantial about the economic system (you know, the really important thing) but will act to re-legitimise both of them, and at a time where this has been and is going to be under severe strain.

This is just a way of saying "don't vote it only encourages them" and would suggest a principled abstention from electoral politics at every level. If that's the case you want to make fine - let's have that debate. But if - like the IWCA - you choose to stand candidates in elections, then it is logical to take steps to prevent the rules of electoral systems from closing down the space for you to develop support.

I can understand the greens and the lib-dem voting idiots who think they're socialists getting all excited but those with wider ambitions and a more coherent critique really shouldn't be. No one really think that change can come through MPs and national parliaments, so why pretend?

Well, yes and no. I'm assuming that you recognise that the not everyone who takes a strategic interest in electoral politics is automatically a parliamentary cretin? There is an argument that says developing a socialist movement inside and outside parliament produces a more effective platfrom and agency from which to demonstrate the limitations of parliamentary legitimacy at a subsequent stage. To be sure that argument hasn't played out in the historical development of the Labour party/movement. But that is why institutional change and democratic reform are needed to break (and transform) the influence of Labourist attitudes.

 

[butchersapron]

This is just a way of saying "don't vote it only encourages them" and would suggest a principled abstention from electoral politics at every level. If that's the case you want to make fine - let's have that debate. But if - like the IWCA - you choose to stand candidates in elections, then it is logical to take steps to prevent the rules of electoral systems from closing down the space for you to develop support.

Except that AV will do no such thing, it will change nothing whatsoever for groups like the IWCA. And worse, it again confuses the real driver of the system for it's hat.

Well, yes and no. I'm assuming that you recognise that the not everyone who takes a strategic interest in electoral politics is automatically a parliamentary cretin? There is an argument that says developing a socialist movement inside and outside parliament produces a more effective platfrom and agency from which to demonstrate the limitations of parliamentary legitimacy at a subsequent stage. To be sure that argument hasn't played out in the historical development of the Labour party/movement. But that is why institutional change and democratic reform are needed to break (and transform) the influence of Labourist attitudes.

Everyone of the people i've pointed to in that quote is most definitely a parliamentary cretin - or, more accurately, would be if they wanted genuine change and thought this was the way to get it. They don't. They just want a new hat.

Taking 'a strategic interest' alone isn't enough - it's not a good enough justification. Saying 'i take a strategic interest therefore i'm right' is not good enough. I've outlined my strategic interest and why it leads to different conclusions than those you've reached.

This is something that's starting to piss me off about this and it's already creeping into your posts - people like the ERS and other soft and liberal lefts adopting the EU's position on referendums. Painting those with a different view to them as troglodytes, enemies of modernisation, tribalists etc in order to browbeat people into shameful agreement. Do that and you and Clegg will lose your vote.

 

[articul8]

I think that winning the AV vote will be a hugely difficult task, because it is likely to become a referendum on this coalition and the LDs role in it, the budget etc pretty much on the lines you are suggesting ought to be the case. It is hard (but still possible) to be totally against the LDs in terms of what they are doing but still side with them on this very particular question.

But suppose it does fall, what will be the result? Clegg will be damaged (good) and the LDs will have little to gain from the coalition (again good). BUT the tories boundary stitch up will have happened and reduced no of seats in Wales, Scotland, and urban seats (ie mostly Labour). The LDs wouldn't dare pull out of the coalition despite them getting nothing out of it, as the last think they'd want is a GE where they will get smashed out of sight. So it won't accelerate the end of the coalition. When the GE eventually does come the collapse in LDs in the South (especially SW) will hand the Tories another wedge of seats. In other words the collapse of the LDs might very well not lead to a turn to the left but to a consolidation of the right. Now, you might say this will lead to riots in the streets, total collapse in authority of parliament, some kind of pre-revolutionary situation. Will it?

Oh, and losing a referendum on the voting system will mean we won't get a referendum on PR for decades to come - cementing Labour's continuing to pose as the only alternative.

If there was a YES vote, there would be more Ld/Con fights in the GE after and Labour would suffer less from boundary gerrymander. Voters could disagreggate their first preferences from Labour and - although it would change nothing in the short term- there would be a medium-long term basis for the emergence of independent w/c, green or left candidates.

 

[ericjarvis]

If there was a YES vote, there would be more Ld/Con fights in the GE after and Labour would suffer less from boundary gerrymander. Voters could disagreggate their first preferences from Labour and - although it would change nothing in the short term- there would be a medium-long term basis for the emergence of independent w/c, green or left candidates.

This presupposes the emergence of some sort of green or left alternative that has a shred of credibility. So far as I can see the green alternatives are basically refugees from the main parties. The left alternatives are more interested in manouevring for control in the case of a large scale left wing party emerging than they are concerned about the welfare of working class people.

So basically it's a shit idea in the short term, and pointless in the medium-long term.

But it's something that other people have to do, as opposed to working to produce a viable alternative to the current parties, so that's all right then. We stay up shit creek, but it's somebody else's fault.

 

[articul8]

I have carefully been arguing that it offer greater space for, more of a basis for, the emergence of an alternative. But as the example of PR in Scotland shows, the left can still fuck it all up. It doesn't absolve us of responsibility.

 

[Jean-Luc]

So you admit there is not what I described in Belgium?

I was only talking about the election system you proposed (open party list system where you can vote for individuals on the list and so change the order) not about the body you were proposing should be elected.

On the wider issue, I'm defending AV as the best system, from the point of view of democratic theory, for electing a mandated and recallable delegate. I realise that in the real world of capitalism what electoral system there is isn't going to make much difference. And if you want to think tactically I think Butchers scenario is more realistic than Articul8s : a No vote has a good chance of bringing down the coalition and calling into question the cuts they plan to introduce after 2011. Whether any other likely government (Lab, Lib-Lab or Tory) really would abandon them is another matter.

 

[redsquirrel]

I have carefully been arguing that it offer greater space for, more of a basis for, the emergence of an alternative. But as the example of PR in Scotland shows, the left can still fuck it all up. It doesn't absolve us of responsibility.

Where is that alternative in Australia?

 

[ernestolynch]

no way, they'd have been eliminated before the tories and transfered mostly to Labour I think

Green votes to their TORY founders more likely.

 

[shagnasty]

I think the vote on AV will probablly turn into a vote on the LD treachery.Clegg sold his party down the river very cheaply

 

[sihhi]

He said next May's referendum on the alternative vote system for the election of MPs, announced by him this week, "represents an opportunity finally to break this deathly grip of a first-past-the-post electoral system that made sense in the 50s when duopoly politics was its height."

He appealed to Labour to back the change and disclosed he had tried to reassure Cameron and other Conservatives that AV was not an anti-Tory plot. He said: "I think the Conservatives will look at it and realise that because the old patterns of voting are not cast in stone, the system is as good or as bad for any other party."

In remarks that show his determination that the referendum should not break the coalition, he said: "I will not be the lead proponent or figurehead in the referendum. I hope it is something that will excite people from beyond politics – academics and celebrities, but also people from all different parties."

He refused to specify how the bill introducing the referendum would also speed up the normal six-year constituency boundary review to two years, as he announced this week as part of his deal with Cameron. He said the review process would be streamlined, adding: "It is not about removing rights of appeal – that is not the name of the game."

Bye Bye AV. Bye Bye PR.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I was only talking about the election system you proposed (open party list system where you can vote for individuals on the list and so change the order) not about the body you were proposing should be elected.

so you admit there is not what I described in Belgium?

 

[butchersapron]

Alternative Vote is the more straightforward section. The referendum is May 5th and the question is “Do you want the United Kingdom to adopt the “alternative vote” system instead of the current “first past the post” system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?”. There is no minimum turnout or anything on the referendum and it is binding – if the referendum is won, the minister must bring the provisions introducing AV (which are all in the Bill) into effect.

Get to fuckeroo filth.

The actual Bill.

 

[articul8]

and? exactly what was expected.

 

[ska invita]

im having a hard time working out what way to go on this. for me PR is the dream, but AV in practice is a step back as it does exactly the opposite of what I want PR to do, and thats take away votes from big parties to smaller parties. If Ive understood it right it does this because your first choice vote for a small party will get discounted and if you vote for a big party second they will get your vote.

this gives the big parties a bigger sense of entitlement and claim of legitimacy - it tricks people into voting for the big parties. I want the big three to have less legitimacy, not more. So in principle i would vote No to AV.

THat said if i can be convinced that this is a step towards PR I will support it - im worried a NO win would mean politicians saying 'voters dont want the system changing' and any future referendums are shelved indefinitely. But that can be said of a YES vote too (that it will make it harder in the future to get PR in).

Both Yes and No votes are poisoned chalices for me. Still not convinced either way.

 

[shagnasty]

Nu labour will oppose AV because the tories have bundled it with a vote on boundary changes,it still as to get through parliament

 

[joevsimp]

I think I'm glad that this is dead for now (it is isn't it?) as I said, I'd only vote yes if it included holding local government elections that are already for mult-member wards by STV, and that wasw never on offer, and now that AV is off the agenda, pressure can continue to grow for more serious reform

 

[kabbes]

Have I missed something? Why is it dead for now? Are there enough Tory rebels to scupper it?

 

[William of Walworth]

Nu labour will oppose AV because the tories have bundled it with a vote on boundary changes,

The gerrymandering aspect, the boundary changes being cynically bundled together with AV, is a pretty fair reason for opposing the Bill in its pesent form at least, and I post as someone who has no big problems with AV in itself.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Haha. Every government gerrymanders and every opposition cries foul.

 

[William of Walworth]

Haha. Every government gerrymanders and every opposition cries foul.

Doesn't mean the anti-bundling-together case isn't pretty strong though, and for good reasons beyond just party advantage ...

 

[articul8]

The gerrymandering aspect, the boundary changes being cynically bundled together with AV, is a pretty fair reason for opposing the Bill in its pesent form at least, and I post as someone who has no big problems with AV in itself.

me too actually - they need to split the AV bit off from the gerrymander and have two separate bills

 

[butchersapron]

First yougov poll in which the no vote is largest. 37% -yes, 38% - no.

 

[little_legs]

there is still time to change/shape the public opinion, according to the FT, there will be an ad blitz in the next couple of months:

Lib Dem hopes hit by AV vote rules
Financial Times (London, England) - Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Author: Barker, Alex ; Pickard, Jim ; Stacey, Kiran

Abstract: Each side allowed to raise generous £5m Financial strength of 'no' side is feared

Campaigners for and against electoral reform will be able to spend a total of more than £11m in a blizzard of promotional material and adverts in the run up to next year's referendum, the Electoral Commission has confirmed.

Under the law, the "yes" and "no" campaigns on the alternative vote (AV) system can each spend £5m of private money as well as £600,000 apiece of public funding. The two sides will also be given free use of public rooms such as council buildings, a TV broadcast and free postal delivery to households across the UK of 20m leaflets each.

Some Lib Dems - the most ardent proponents of the alternative vote, under which voters can list candidates in order of preference - fear that the generous ceiling for private fundraising could put the "yes" campaign at a disadvantage. City figures with deep pockets and conservative leanings are thought more likely to favour keeping the first-past-the-post system.

"If you think what the natural inclinations are of the typical hedge fund magnate or whatever - traditional, anti-change - that means the 'no' campaign may have less of a struggle to raise money," argued one polling expert.

At present, the only party that will campaign wholeheartedly for AV is the Liberal Democrats, who raised only £3.7m in total in party donations in 2009 - much less than the upper limit for the referendum campaign.

Labour, despite the pro-reform sentiments of some senior figures, is planning to vote against the bill on the basis that it will also introduce smaller constituency boundaries. In private, some Labour MPs admit that they would like to see the proposals rejected because this would destabilise the coalition.

And while the Tory leadership may take only a low-key role in the anti-AV campaign, many back bench MPs are already campaigning against AV.

Opinion polls show that a 28-point lead for the "yes" campaign as recently as May had dwindled to as little as one point by last month - in line with a drop in the Lib Dems' popularity.

"It is too early to tell whether this will last. People haven't started thinking about it yet," said one senior Lib Dem. "But they need to get the campaign organisation sorted out otherwise the initiative could well be lost."

The "yes" campaign is understood to be compiling a list of high-profile supporters that will be published in the coming days. However, its attempt to co-opt some senior Tories, including Oliver Letwin, the party's reform-minded head of policy, have fallen on deaf ears.

Robert Hayward, a respected psephologist who advised the Tories during the election campaign on boundary reform, said the polls were likely to tilt further against AV in the run-up to next summer.

Half of Tory voters polled by YouGov last week were in favour of AV. "That support is likely to deteriorate as prominent Tories come out against a yes vote," Mr Hayward said.

Pros and cons of electoral system

It is Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg's misfortune that he has described the alternative vote, for which he will be campaigning next year, as a "miserable little compromise" and a "baby step in the right direction" towards full proportional representation, writes Jim Pickard .

AV is similar to Britain's first-past-the-post system (FPTP) of electing single-member constituencies. But rather than marking a single "X" on the ballot paper, the voter can rank the candidates on offer.

Lord Jenkins, who chaired an official review of the voting system in 1998, concluded that AV could be less proportional than FPTP.

But the Electoral Reform Society has listed some of its advantages.

MPs would have the support of a majority of their constituents; boundaries would not need to be redrawn; it is no more likely to produce coalition governments; it eliminates the need for tactical voting; and it deters negative campaigning.

It could also be a stepping stone towards full PR, although that is unlikely in this parliament.

 

[butchersapron]

They can blitz who they like - the yes vote is associated with the lib dems primarily and then the coalition - the lib dems are on 12-15% the coalition on bare 50% national approval , the tories don't support AV. It's going down and it'll take the coalition with it.

 

[little_legs]

some people where i work who are in their mid twenties (i don't know their exact age, but i'd say 24 to 26), all of them think that they absolutely must vote 'yes' in May, and they don't need any ads. they simply say that they were teenagers when labour came to power, so they could not vote, they are in the voting age now and they are adamant that the FPTP system is undemocratic, which is why they will vote for AV. in other words, they don't care who introduces the AV (lib dems or labour) and they don't mind that the AV brings the end of the single party governments, they just say that AV is more democratic and that's a good reason to vote 'yes'.

 

[articul8]

They can blitz who they like - the yes vote is associated with the lib dems primarily and then the coalition - the lib dems are on 12-15% the coalition on bare 50% national approval , the tories don't support AV. It's going down and it'll take the coalition with it.

I would expect the Tories to put relatively little by way of finance into the NO campaign - they will fight it mainly in through their dominance of the right wing press. I might be wrong but I wouldn't be surprised if the fixed term parliament legislation was drawn out, and Cameron would call a swift GE after a NO vote in the referendum - after the LDs had over stretched themselves.

 

[butchersapron]

some people where i work who are in their mid twenties (i don't know their exact age, but i'd say 24 to 26), all of them think that they absolutely must vote 'yes' in May, and they don't need any ads. they simply say that they were teenagers when labour came to power, so they could not vote, they are in the voting age now and they are adamant that the FPTP system is undemocratic, which is why they will vote for AV. in other words, they don't care who introduces the AV (lib dems or labour) and they don't mind that the AV brings the end of the single party governments, they just say that AV is more democratic and that's a good reason to vote 'yes'.

That argument is one that going to be aggressively challenged over the next 10 months. It's had a piss easy ride thus far. All the polling (and that's all it is) shows the when given a breakdown of potential outcomes from AV support drops significantly - into areas where the referendum will be lost.

 

[butchersapron]

I would expect the Tories to put relatively little by way of finance into the NO campaign - they will fight it mainly in through their dominance of the right wing press. I might be wrong but I wouldn't be surprised if the fixed term parliament legislation was drawn out, and Cameron would call a swift GE after a NO vote in the referendum - after the LDs had over stretched themselves.

I don't think they have a fixed approach - i think it depends on what state the lib-dems are in at the time and what the polls say the outcome is looking like.

 

[articul8]

when given a breakdown of potential outcomes from AV support drops significantly

Quite a lot of AV modelling is based on the misleading assumption that first preferences will stay mostly the same as under FPTP. This is far from self evident. Obviously there is an issue in that the LDs are likely be the biggest winner, and people aren't in the mood to reward them at the moment. The success of the campaign will depend on its ability to engage and bring on board forces otherwise opposed to the LDs politically. Frankly, I think they are mishandling it terribly at the moment and it could well bite them in the arse. But the biggest gainers from "no change" - aside from the Tories - are the pig thick tribalist Labourites.