Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011

[Spanky Longhorn]

In terms of moving on from AV, it would be very difficult to reverse back to FPTP after it had been rejected. But it would only take a couple of disprortionate results under AV - particularly a "wrong winner" - for people to decide that further reform is needed. It wouldn't necessarily require a further referendum - to introduce a top-up element (go to AV+) would just be to straighten out the deficiencies and make AV work. Alternatively simply moving to multi-member seats would deliver PR but isn't really a change in system at all. AV just means STV in single member contests.

Any further changes would require massive boundry changes (after all going from single member to say three member constituencies would not be as simple as merging three neighbouring constitutencies) imeadiately after a massive excercise that is going to take several years and cost millions of pounds of taxpayer's money redrawing the current boundries to get rid of all those Labour seats.

 

[articul8]

well i don't agree with the current boundary changes and AV in itself doesn't require any - If they are made dependent on each other I would have no problems with not voting to set up the referendum. And I can see that given how difficult it would be to win, it would be better for the referendum not to happen that for it to be lost.
(Actually STV doesn't necessarily require a wholesale redrawing of boundaries - just the amalgamation of existing ones)

But if the referendum goes ahead - then my gut feeling is that a vote to retain FPTP would essentially put future change off the agenda for a long time, longer than a move to AV which as I've explained would still be vulnerable to the pro PR arguments and contains a pro-PR dynamic at other levels.

 

[articul8]

it could be argued that a no vote will show that people are not prepared to endorse a change short of full pr.

I really don't think this would counter the argument that people had already re-endorsed FPTP, Clegg would be seen to have had his fingers burned on the issue and politicians will steer clear of it for ages.

I think AV would make it much easier for initiatives like PCS's - to back stand independent pro-union candidates - as it would avoid the accusation of helping the Con/Libs by taking votes off Labour. The grip of auto-Labourism is perhaps event stronger than when they were in office. Of course PR would be better still. But if it's a straight choice....?

 

[butchersapron]

A yes vote is equally a ringing endorsement of AV and not PR then. The same logic would leave us stuck at AV for ever .

If it's a straight choice and a vote for AV offers no advantages (i don't think it does, i think your scenarios are highly unlikely, and i'm not interested in giving the whole system a nice public relations make over) but voting against AV damages the coalition i know what i'd prefer.

BTW the TUC have been having secret talks with the coalition - i wouldn't put too much hope in anything coming from that direction right now.

 

[articul8]

err - where the hell have i suggested looking to the TUC for hope!!?? It's precisely as a way of breaking the iron grip of the Labour tops (inc in the unions) that I'm suggesting AV could be important.

I don't see how the PCS scenario is "highly unlikely" - they've already agreed to consult their members on standing candidates! I think it's quite wrong to say there are no advantages - but I do accept that it wouldn't lead to immediate results in the sense of getting left/independent/green candidates elected in the aftermath, the advantages would be more slow burning. But none the less important for that.

 

[butchersapron]

I was making a point about the union leaders and bureaucrats and how they're quite adept (or at least willing) at playing left to one market whilst acting entirely differently in reality - PSC included. Surely you can see the relevance to your argument?

 

[redsquirrel]

It's entirely anecdotal but I've not heard any mention of moving to PR out here, so I'm very skeptical of the idea that AV is going to be a step on the way to STV or something else.

 

[articul8]

well you already have STV for second chamber?

 

[articul8]

I was making a point about the union leaders and bureaucrats and how they're quite adept (or at least willing) at playing left to one market whilst acting entirely differently in reality - PSC included. Surely you can see the relevance to your argument?

I'm not sure I do, no.

 

[sihhi]

I'm not sure I do, no.

The Point: Don't trust official trade union promises.



Austin Mitchell on the history of 'electoral reform'/PR

When I was first elected, I joined the Labour campaign for electoral reform and-incredible though it now seems-the bulk of support for electoral reform at that time came from the Conservative party, which wanted proportional representation to keep out socialism and Tony Benn. There has been a volte-face since then. Parties have changed their opinions on the issue very much in common with how they have changed them on Europe and the European Union. My rise within the cause of proportional representation was rocket assisted; as soon as I joined the Labour campaign for electoral reform, all the other members left to join the Social Democratic party, and I rapidly became chair and sole member.

Tony Benn on reform

Tony Benn; Former Labour minister

I have been a long-time supporter of fixed-term parliaments, a system that is used by most parliaments across the world, including the US. I do not believe that the Prime Minister should be given the power to decide when the next election is, which can give the ruling party an obvious political advantage.

MPs should also have to fill out a formal declaration that they will behave ethically once they become members of Parliament. It may help transparency if they were made to publish their income tax details, too. We also need to introduce a federal system, so that English MPs are deciding rules for English constituencies. Why should English people be governed by the opinions of politicians from Scottish constituencies? Changing that would have to be part of electoral reform.

Another part has to be serious reform to the House of Lords. An elected senate would be a fairer system. Overall, we need a new constitution for Britain, something I have been arguing for over many years. Like all these big ideas, these reforms will take a long time to achieve. But they are not impossible. First you are thought of as mad. Then you are dangerous. Then you cannot find anyone at the top who doesn't claim to have had the idea first.

 

[articul8]

? What "official promises" have i been swallowing here? PCS's promise to consult members on standing new candidates? There is a power struggle over whether this is a good idea or not. AV would help to resolve it in favour of a positive decision to go for it - as it couldn't be painted as helping the Tories.

Support for PR isn't intrinsically left or progressive - people take it up tactically if they think it helps their kind of politics. Which is why a whole spectrum of leftists from Keir Hardie and the ILP, the British CP, Robin Blackburn/Perry Anderson, Ralph Miliband, Hilary Wainwright, Robin Cook and Salma Yaqoob amongst others have been active PR supporters. Yes some have advocated it to create a SDP-esque Lib/Lab fusion. But if that happened and there was a break away of the left from Labour that would be no bad thing.

Tony Benn is a supporter of AV (or STV in single member constituencies as he puts it).

 

[sihhi]

No offence, but you'll convince few like that. I don't see how it will make me, my workplace or my block's life any better. I really don't much like political philosophy.
You've not made the case that AV or STV or PR means a fig against business interests.

Look at Plaid in Wales at a complete dead end.
They're 'forced' to join with Labour and slash services, no job expansion programmes, endless "Westminster this, Westminster that" moaning.
Can't ever win in elections against Labour in Wales because they don't have the money.
If they want to win, they'd have to start attracting more business interests to supply more money would make the programme even more like Welsh Labour's (a la SNP).

Look at the SSP implosion over the past years all with AV/PR.

Elections are basically about nothing. More and more layers - less and less chance of control and power over the economy.

Why is a left break from Labour useful to you or me? What will a left Labour MP grouping, certain to capitulate to Labour its inevitable coalition partner do for me? What has the Linskpartei actually acheived? Don't give us jibber - they have a record and it's an ugly one.

? What "official promises" have i been swallowing here? PCS's promise to consult members on standing new candidates?

Is it meaningful?

This was last time in May

The PCS civil service workers’ union is identifying marginal seats where workers face closures, or where key government ministers are standing, and inviting all candidates to a ‘question time’. PCS will be asking candidates of all parties where they stand in respect of five key pledges on public services: cuts and privatisation, pensions, equality, national pay bargaining and the closure of tax loopholes for the rich.

Perhaps some PCS people could tell us what they thought of it.

 

[little_legs]

.

Beware AV, Nick. It might turn out to be a killer
Times, The (London, England) - Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Peter Wilson

Aplague of deadly flying foxes will probably not emerge as an important factor in Britain's next general election. But there are still some potent lessons for Britain from Australia's election, where those pesky fruit bats have been made a national issue by Bob Katter, an independent MP who now shares the balance of power in a hung Parliament.

Nick Clegg should certainly study Australia's Alternative Vote system, which he hopes will replace first past the post next year. Saturday's result would have been totally different if votes had been counted by the UK system rather than by AV, which takes account of voters' second preferences. First past the post would have produced a clear conservative victory.

With 76 seats needed for a majority, Labor seems set for 72, the conservative coalition 73, the Greens one and independents four. But Labor owes eight seats to the second preferences of Green voters, while the Green MP and one independent, Andrew Wilkie, would have lost without AV. Under first past the post, the result would have been 81 conservatives, 66 Labor and three rural independents.

The important point is that AV not only changes results but also the behaviour of voters and parties in ways that will not necessarily help the Lib Dems. Mr Clegg is banking on winning lots of second preferences, but AV also encourages voters to back smaller parties, such as the Greens. Instead of fearing a wasted vote, one can choose Green first and Labor second, knowing that if the Green is eliminated the vote will "flow" back to the mainstream candidate.

AV also formalises alliances between coalition parties, undermining the identity of the smaller partner. Australia's rural National Party took another step towards being absorbed by its sister party, the Liberals.

In the long term, AV nudges the big parties toward the centre. When the Tories know that they will pick up most UKIP preferences, they will be free to compete more vigorously for the centre ground. That is why Australia's main parties have generally been more middle-of-the-road than their British counterparts.

That leaves less room for centrist parties such as the Lib Dems. It is no coincidence that the new third force in Australia is the Greens, and before them it was the hard-right One Nation. The one centrist party of recent decades, the Democrats, effectively died on Saturday by winning only 0.6 per cent of the vote.

It is not as dangerous as those killer fruit bats but Mr Clegg still might want to think twice about embracing AV.

Peter Wilson edited The Australian Political Almanac and is Europe correspondent of The Australian The Lib Dems will suffer as big parties are nudged to the centre

 

[redsquirrel]

well you already have STV for second chamber?

True, but no one talks about expanding that system to the lower house.

 

[butchersapron]

YouGov – FPTP has a 11 point lead over AV

This morning’s YouGov daily poll also contained YouGov’s fortnightly tracker on the AV referendum. Today’s figures have 32% saying they would vote in favour of adopting AV, and 43% saying they would vote to keep FPTP – it’s the first time since YouGov started the tracker back in June that the NO campaign have been ahead by more than 10 points. In comparison, back in June AV had a 10 point lead. Below is the graph of the tracker so far – the trends speak for themselves.

 

[Santino]

Credit where credit's due. Who else but Clegg, Cable & Co. could have given support for FPTP such a boost?

 

[articul8]

Ha that's true enough. But given that the YES campaign hasn't even started to go public yet it's not very indicative of anything much, apart from maybe that the NOs are peaking too early.

 

[kabbes]

It's true. I'm a massive fan of voting reform, but Clegg's mob have actively worked their hardest to put me in mind to say no.

 

[butchersapron]

Ha that's true enough. But given that the YES campaign hasn't even started to go public yet it's not very indicative of anything much, apart from maybe that the NOs are peaking too early.

A bit like newcastle on Sunday you mean?

edit: I think you can argue with equal justification there's been no proper NO campaign kicked off either, and so what this represents is actually real genuine independent ground up opposition - as opposed to the human dust supporting it

 

[Santino]

apart from maybe that the NOs are peaking too early.

LOL

 

[frogwoman]

this is just the beginning

 

[articul8]

edit: I think you can argue with equal justification there's been no proper NO campaign kicked off either, and so what this represents is actually real genuine independent ground up opposition - as opposed to the human dust supporting it

except when the no camp does emerge it will become clear just how much of a lash up between Conservatives and Conservative Labourists like Prescott it all is. Or maybe there will be a sizeable anarchist component?! Either way the support for a NO will fall as a consequence.

 

[butchersapron]

There'll certainly be a sizable anti-neo-liberal element voting no. It's pretty clear this is what's driving the turn from 10% support into 11% against - and that attempts to tar this as a pro-tory development have had no effect whatsoever - in fact, in the teeth of those attempts the yes campaign has gone even further backwards.

 

[Quartz]

except when the no camp does emerge it will become clear just how much of a lash up between Conservatives and Conservative Labourists like Prescott it all is.

Prescott a Conservative? *Boggle*

I intend voting against because the proposed system is too complex. It's fine in normal seats, but then so is FPTP. Where AV / STV fails is when the election is closely contested so you have to game the system well down the list. This means that the result is not transparent and open to the perception of a fiddle. Approval Voting gets my vote.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Might see some Tories getting on side with this if they think that an agreement with the Lib Dems to push a 'vote coalition partners 1 and 2' line will secure their future and squeeze Labour.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[articul8]

I haven't seen a single one make that case yet. Largely because they are aware that LD voters are generally to the left of the LD leadership and wouldn't go along with it in too many areas,

 

[butchersapron]

Might see some Tories getting on side with this if they think that an agreement with the Lib Dems to push a 'vote coalition partners 1 and 2' line will secure their future and squeeze Labour.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Some of them are already kite-flying on this. Which would turn pro-AV voters into tories - using the logic up the thread a bit anyway.

I haven't seen a single one make that case yet. Largely because they are aware that LD voters are generally to the left of the LD leadership and wouldn't go along with it in too many areas,

What, principled left-lib-dems (no such thing anymore) would vote against AV if the tories started supporting it? What madness is this?

 

[butchersapron]

Might see some Tories getting on side with this if they think that an agreement with the Lib Dems to push a 'vote coalition partners 1 and 2' line will secure their future and squeeze Labour.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

There was a good point made in the comments in that article i linked to:

If people vote for AV, the Lib-Dems still have a problem: they have little choice but to say the Coalition has been a success and that voters should give their second preference to the Tories.

What else can they do? Any other recommendation is admitting the coalition was shit and the parties who formed it shouldn't be supported.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

What else can they do? Any other recommendation is admitting the coalition was shit and the parties who formed it shouldn't be supported.

Quite; you can't be in government with the Tories for 5 years (cheering the 'successes', applauding the 'hard decisions', slapping each other on the back) and then try and sell the voters the idea that you think they're just as good/bad as Labour. Which is presumably why the media is full of stuff about how keen Clegg and those close to him are on the idea of an AV voting agreement (something Simon Hughes et al. will still be able to defend as not being a pact and maintaining the LD's commitment to stand in every constituency).

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[articul8]

What, principled left-lib-dems (no such thing anymore) would vote against AV if the tories started supporting it? What madness is this?

No, I was saying that if AV comes in, many LD voters wouldn't give the Tories a 2nd pref even if they were urged to by Clegg.