A Miserable Little Compromise?
Time to dip my toe - finally- in the murky waters of tomorrow's Referendum.
My Twitter friend, Nick, has provided very good reasons why those of us who can, should participate in the Referendum - irrespective of how we vote. You can read what he has written (including thoughts as to the criteria we should use when considering where we put our cross) at http://www.nickssanctuary.com/. I will not reinvent a wheel that has already been so well designed! However, I will now nail my colours to the mast.
Tomorrow, I will vote no.
Now, before you lump me with the "dinasours" of the No to AV campaign, let me explain why....
I was first captivated by politics as an 18 year old by the then vibrant Social Democratic Party. I campaigned for them in 1987 - a bad year for the Liberal/SDP Alliance. I voted for the ensuing merger of the two parties, became a founder member of the new Social and Liberal Democrats and even went to the first party conference in Blackpool as a delegate. I became a standard bearer for progressive politics and one of the causes I championed was that of Fairer Votes - Proportional Representation. It seemed to me - particularly as a Liberal Democrat - that the electoral system was unfair and resulted in government by a party which, though winning a plurality, failed to win majority support in the country.
Even as I moved away from an active involvement in frontline politics I remained firmly convinced of the need for electoral reform. As I found myself gradually shiifting further to the left in my politics away from the Liberal Democrats and through the coalition spectrum which is the Labour movement, I still remained convinced of the need for electoral reform.
But tomorrow I vote no. Why? Not from any party political motive. Not out of a desire to "punish" Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. Ironically, up until the election last year I was convinced of the need for immediate electoral reform. Indeed, I was pleased that Labour included AV in their election manifesto. Yet tomorrow I vote no. Why?
Partly because AV is, in the words of Nick Clegg, a "miserable little compromise". Chris Huhne said that "it does not give voters any real power". And the late Roy Jenkins who chaired a Royal Commission into Electoral Reform in 1998 concluded that that AV was ‘even less proportional’ than our existing system, and warned that it was ‘disturbingly unpredictable’.
Partly because I would rather we retained FPTP or moved over to PR proper. If we adopted full Proportional Representation then at least we would know that each election would produce a coalition government and our politicians would be able, from the beginning of any election campaign, to be open when challenged about what their real policy priorities were. And perhaps we could then avoid the mess of recent months whereby one party find themselves at the centre of a (self-inflicted) malestrom because of championing policies before the election that they did not really believe in.
AV does not guarantee regular coalition government. In fact, if it had been used in 1997 then it would have increased Labour's already Landslide majority. But it is more likely to produce a hung parliament then under the current system; and at least under FPTP that is a very rare occurance.
I want to know what the parties stand for and I want to know that when I cast my vote I will not find it wasted. I have been voting for losing parties and candidates for years and have never considered that vote wasted - I was exercising the privilege of engaging in the democratic process and that sometimes means you lose the argument. But if I had voted at the last election for a party which abandoned much of its platform and principle afterwards for power, that, to me, would have truly been a wasted vote.
My Twitter friend, Nick, has provided very good reasons why those of us who can, should participate in the Referendum - irrespective of how we vote. You can read what he has written (including thoughts as to the criteria we should use when considering where we put our cross) at http://www.nickssanctuary.com/. I will not reinvent a wheel that has already been so well designed! However, I will now nail my colours to the mast.
Tomorrow, I will vote no.
Now, before you lump me with the "dinasours" of the No to AV campaign, let me explain why....
I was first captivated by politics as an 18 year old by the then vibrant Social Democratic Party. I campaigned for them in 1987 - a bad year for the Liberal/SDP Alliance. I voted for the ensuing merger of the two parties, became a founder member of the new Social and Liberal Democrats and even went to the first party conference in Blackpool as a delegate. I became a standard bearer for progressive politics and one of the causes I championed was that of Fairer Votes - Proportional Representation. It seemed to me - particularly as a Liberal Democrat - that the electoral system was unfair and resulted in government by a party which, though winning a plurality, failed to win majority support in the country.
Even as I moved away from an active involvement in frontline politics I remained firmly convinced of the need for electoral reform. As I found myself gradually shiifting further to the left in my politics away from the Liberal Democrats and through the coalition spectrum which is the Labour movement, I still remained convinced of the need for electoral reform.
But tomorrow I vote no. Why? Not from any party political motive. Not out of a desire to "punish" Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. Ironically, up until the election last year I was convinced of the need for immediate electoral reform. Indeed, I was pleased that Labour included AV in their election manifesto. Yet tomorrow I vote no. Why?
Partly because AV is, in the words of Nick Clegg, a "miserable little compromise". Chris Huhne said that "it does not give voters any real power". And the late Roy Jenkins who chaired a Royal Commission into Electoral Reform in 1998 concluded that that AV was ‘even less proportional’ than our existing system, and warned that it was ‘disturbingly unpredictable’.
Partly because I would rather we retained FPTP or moved over to PR proper. If we adopted full Proportional Representation then at least we would know that each election would produce a coalition government and our politicians would be able, from the beginning of any election campaign, to be open when challenged about what their real policy priorities were. And perhaps we could then avoid the mess of recent months whereby one party find themselves at the centre of a (self-inflicted) malestrom because of championing policies before the election that they did not really believe in.
AV does not guarantee regular coalition government. In fact, if it had been used in 1997 then it would have increased Labour's already Landslide majority. But it is more likely to produce a hung parliament then under the current system; and at least under FPTP that is a very rare occurance.
I want to know what the parties stand for and I want to know that when I cast my vote I will not find it wasted. I have been voting for losing parties and candidates for years and have never considered that vote wasted - I was exercising the privilege of engaging in the democratic process and that sometimes means you lose the argument. But if I had voted at the last election for a party which abandoned much of its platform and principle afterwards for power, that, to me, would have truly been a wasted vote.
but would yes be a step in the right direction?
ReplyDeleteThanks for the linkage. I respect your own view even though it is different to mine. You've clearly thought it out (which is all anyone can ask). What I find most interesting is that among those who have thought it out, there is a desire for greater change. People seem to be adopting strategies for the longer game... one that includes a proper debate on PR.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to boil down to a choice between: (a) all or nothing and (b) take what we can now and come back later when the opportunity arises.
I guess for me the question is whether or not the issue will ever be raised again. My great concern is that politicians... like the proverbial turkey, will not be so inclined to vote for Christmas.
I don't think I'm as patient as you... and I'm not inclined to trust the politicians.
I can't see a viable opportunity for this to come along again until the demographics change... and that could take another 20 years.
This is a thought out post, you've clearly set out your rationale. What is annoying me is the vast armies of people (more often than not in the NO camp), who are being vocal and aggressive and are so self assured that they are not showing others who think differently the respect.
Thank you for setting out a reasonable view from the No perspective.