Ah, the new year, there truly is no time like it- The unwelcome realization that you really shouldn't have left quite so much to do before Christmas, and you know you would have kept your resolutions better had you not suddenly found yourself presented with this festering mass of work to do before you could even think of improving yourself and so you start 2011 just like every other year; unready, confused, hungover.
With the possible exception of hungover, that description neatly ties in with how I would describe the 'Yes' and 'No' campaigns on this small constitutional matter of electoral reform in favour of AV (oh what seamless transition that was!). With the news that 114 LAbour MPs will not be backing it I have finally been motivated from my indifference to take a look at just what arguments are being put forward in this debate. Excitingly, this is my first 100% politics post, I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I loathed writing it.
I rather wish I hadn't looked into it- call me cynical if you must, but all I can see is doublespeak and a certain patronising attitude towards the undecided reader, and I don't make these claims lightly.
The 'No' Campaign have of course already picked up on the big achille's heel of Yes campaign- namely that a great many on it do not actually think AV is actually a real replacement for FPTP- especially those who have secured this referendum, the Liberal Democrats- who have long argued in favour of a system of Proportional Representation, which AV is certainly not. One would think there would be some acknowledgement of this by the 'yes' crowd- but no, instead I am presented with all the glories of this system, how it is so much more democratic, gives the people more choice, more power- they make it feel like it's the answer to all their electoral-reforming prayers.
Really? Is it that good? Is this what you really want? The whole thing smacks of gimmicky compromise and it doesn't really give people much more choice than the original system. This actually is part-way acknowledged by the campaign- at no point do they assert that voting for your actual preferred party will count towards anything, merely that instead of purely tactical voting, your first choice will lose, but your vote can bolster support for someone you dislike slightly less than all the others.
According to the BBC, had AV been in place at the last election, Labour would have in fact picked up 4 MORE seats with just 29% of the vote than they did under FPTP- and whilst the Lib Dems would have gained far more seats, they'd still be tiny in comparison to the big 2. So much for breaking the stranglehold of the 'Punch and Judy Politics'. At no point do these people seem to face up to the question: Is it really worth so much effort for such little change?
However, if the Yes campaign appears to be in denial about what it stands for, the 'No' campaign is even weirder. When it comes to campaigning against AV there seems to be 2 obvious routes to proceed down, either opting to defend the merits of the present system and decrying AV as an innovation too far, or instead arguing that it doesn't go far enough in solving our 'democratic deficit' and opposing in favour of something considered better than either.
The thing with the 'No' Campaign is that they try to do both at once! If one looks at their 3 main reasons for voting no, the first two imply support for FPTP which in typical thought gives strong government, simplicity and clear majorities, yet the third argues that AV is not democratic solemnly averring at one point that 'A No vote will defend fair votes and is a call for real reform'.
Obviously 'doing nothing and keeping the system' cannot be anyone's definition of reform- although with the perplexing grammar ('A No vote stops minority party voters – like BNP supporters – getting more than one vote when the votes are counted') and the rather obvious falsehoods ('A No vote ensures people vote for who and what a candidate is, as opposed to who and what a candidate is not'), who knows what they really mean to mean?
If the 'No' group seem unclear in their thinking on their website their leaflet gives it away. If one is able to withstand the glare of the fluorescent purple and yellow one can see down the right hand side a column entitled 'WHY THE CURRENT SYSTEM WORKS'. So it would seem after all that our most democratic option is in fact FPTP.
Ri-ight...
Perhaps they really do think that a system in which a candidate can achieve less than half the votes and still win overall is fair, or believe a system where a party can achieve 29% of the vote and walk away with 39.7% of the seats, whilst third place on 23% of the vote get just 10.1% of the seats really reflects voter choice. Is it fair when in the 2005 election, 70% of the votes cast were wasted, either discounted or excess to need? As a voter who has yet to see their vote count towards anyone actually getting elected I can tell you it doesn't really feel like the system is working for me. The whole edifice seems a crime against both mathematics and common sense, but honest, it's fair and democratic! Tradition stands vindicated! It is the only system for the UK!
Except of course it isn't is it- amidst all these claims of extremists entering and turmoil in politics, the 'No' Campaigners seem to have forgotten how limited First Past the Post is in this country. Let's take a look. Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliamentary elections? They use the Additional Member System that keep constituencies yet also give more proportional results through 'top-up lists' selected through PR. The Northern Irish Assembly? Single Transferable Vote- pure PR which involves ranking candidates. London MAyoral elections? Supplementary Vote, where first and second preferences are listed, and for EU representatives we use the List System- another form of PR.
So why say that it would be too complicated or difficult to implement or would result in pandaemonium? Most of this country does just fine with it so why should we be denied a chance for our vote to actually count for something at national level?
I believe that anyone who honestly appraises the electoral systems in place in the UK would have to concede that they don't seem to be doing any harm at all, whist the system they're defending leads to tactical voting, safe seats, excludes smaller parties and racks up wasted votes. So what could possibly motivate these people to support it? These 114 MPs to defy their manifesto and oppose their leader?
I can only see one real reason, and perhaps this is where the cynicism bites hardest- the clue is perhaps in a sentence of the 'No' leaflet 'we think it is right to be suspicious why the party that is pushing in the change is the Liberal Democrats.' Could that be because they have most to gain from a change to the system perchance? Are these people opposing AV because it supports the Lib Dems and will weaken the two main parties?
Is it about scoring political points off rivals and maintaining a privileged position if not for the self, then for the Party you support in the legislature?
FPTP is a winner-takes-all system, which strongly encourages a two-party system- voting for a third candidate may see your least favourite choice gaining the seat- best to vote for the one most likely to beat them in that case. Could it be that these people are upholding FPTP because it keeps them in power, allows them to push their agenda unhindered- and never mind if John Public actually wants it or not Labour or the Conservatives (depending on which side one is on) knows what's best and you're just going to have to swallow whatever they give you.
I must admit I am a stalwart democrat at heart- a voter should vote for who they want to vote for, and if that's not Labour then so be it. Strong government can be derived from able politicians co-operating, as the current tory-led government shows- let us not for one moment pretend that much of what is happening now would not have done so had the Conservatives won outright. Able politicians make good government, not majorities delivered by unfair systems. By opening up real democratic choice, Labour runs the risk of being weakened, potentially even cast into electoral oblivion- but then if this party has so failed to show the people either its competence to govern, or that it really cares about they think then it deserves electoral oblivion. No party has the divine right to rule, and no party should honestly think it really has all the best answers to the hard questions- it is a shame if they should think that shutting out a wider range of opinion and insight actually enchances decision making.
It feels rather like the Spitting Image sketch: The two idiot system is here to stay!
This of course has not resolved which way I'm going to vote. I think it's a question of what will really get a genuinely democratic system to appear? Will a 'No' kill the dream of reform full-stop? Will a 'Yes' merely entrench a system that does not really solve the problems that I feel so strongly about?
We're damned if we do (vote yes) and damned if we don't. The change to AV is just big enough that it can be called a concession to PR supporters and just small enough that it will be glossed over whatever the result of the vote is until a few parliaments later.
ReplyDeleteThis debate has popped up repeatedly in the last few decades and we still have no serious steps towards real representation. The best bet seems to be to vote yes and then endure the long wait before such things are brought up again. Or, as I was once told, to get 'MAD AS HELL'.