With May’s AV referendum finally passed by Parliament this week, both Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg have been taking to the public stage to argue for a Yes vote.
Nick Clegg’s speech today majors on how the alternative vote will hold politicians better to account:
Under the Alternative Vote, politicians will need to aim to get half of their constituents to choose them. That means they will have to work harder to appeal to more people than before. It means they will have to reach out to people who were ignored under First Past the Post. It means they will no longer be able to rely on just their core supporters and ignore everyone else. They will be more legitimate and will carry a stronger mandate from a broader range of people. That can only be good for our democracy.
Under the Alternative Vote, there will be fewer MPs with jobs for life in safe seats. That means people whose voices have been ignored will be listened to again. It means that parties will have to compete for votes in every corner of the country and not just those few marginal seats. It means more people get listened to and more respect for the different opinions and feelings we share as a nation. That can only be good for our democracy.
Given my previous criticisms about Labour’s repeated unwillingness to see through political reform when it comes to the crunch, it’s only fair to say that there is much which is very good in Ed Miliband’s Guardian piece this week. He started out confronting head on the temptation to oppose for the sake of opposing:
My belief in a better politics is the reason why I support the alternative vote and will back the yes campaign in this coming referendum. The easy and politically expedient route would be to find an excuse to abandon my support now. But I won’t.
I respect the views of my Labour colleagues who are for retaining first past the post. But I disagree with them. Why? Fundamentally, because AV offers an opportunity for political reform, ensuring the voice of the public is heard louder than it has been in the past. And given the standing of politics that is an opportunity we should take.
His arguments for supporting electoral reform in the referendum are similar to those Nick Clegg and other Liberal Democrats have previously made (indeed his words could almost be taken as a summary of my previous argument):
The very fact of having to gain the majority support of the voters will increase political accountability. AV will also force parties to admit where there is agreement between them, prising open our confrontational system so that similarities sometimes become as important as differences. It could be the beginning of a transformation in political debate.
There is, regretably, a but – and that is when it comes to House of Lords reform. During 13 years of Labour majority rule, Labour always ended up backing away from introducing elections for the Upper House arguing that all sides in the Lords had to agree to it. That, of course, gave a veto to opponents of reform who not surprisingly used it. Despite Ed Miliband’s key role for some of that time, he now has cast aside any desire for broad consensus:
Nick Clegg should make clear that he still supports a fully elected second house rather than another Conservative-inspired compromise [in the form of a mostly rather than fully elected Upper House]. Certainly, I believe MPs – both Labour and Liberal Democrat – should be given the chance to vote for what was in their manifestos.
The optimist in me thinks this is good news. Even if he is not in public acknowledging the previous mistakes of Labour in giving opponents of reform a veto, now calling for there to be no such veto is a good move. However, the pessimist in me fears that in fact this is just lining up Labour to once again flinch away from reform at the crunch. You can imagine the sequence of events: Labour demands fully elected Upper House; Conservatives say no way, only a mostly elected one; Labour say, ok – we will then oppose any reform and Labour ends up voting for having a totally unelected Upper House in preference to a mostly elected one. Time will tell, fingers crossed…
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
Lib Dems are reviewing policy and strategy says PoliticsHome
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Church Green video
Ruth Bright
Tom Bailey
Alex Macfie
William Wallace
59 Comments
Maybe I’ve missed something but as far as I was aware safe seat is by definition one in which the incumbent has more votes than any other challenger by a large margin and will be impervious to AV anyway ?
Pointing out the unfairness of FPTP in the seats gained to percentage of vote is the most obvious way of telling the public why FTPT is unfair, but again will AV really correct this much ?
And why are you already trying to blame Miliband if Nick backs down over a fully elected House of Lords ?
The Lib Dem manifesto committed the party to a fully elected House of Lords.
We all know New Labour and Blair were hypocrites and gunshy of tackling the Lords but this is a chance to finally get a fully elected House through. If Nick wants to compromise on that then that’s up to him, but a fully elected House would pass with the Liberal Democrat and Labour MPs voting for it.
Clegg either wants real reform or it’s yet another climbdown to please Cameron.
“Nick Clegg should make clear that he still supports a fully elected second house rather than another Conservative-inspired compromise”
I personally like the compromise, because it allows for the appointment of a cadre of experts within specialist policy areas, and I am happy to see it picked from within politicians and civil servants as currently happens.
It also decreases the percieved democratic legitimacy of the lords, which is a good thing if we wish to keep our revising chamber as subordinate to the will of the commons, and for the same reason i would be content to see STV used to elect the lords, as the lack of constituency link also will decrease the percieved legitimacy vis-a-vis the commons.
And even where AV does make a difference, in some cases the majority in the final round will be larger than in the first, and in some cases it will be smaller.
It just depends on where the reallocated votes go, and I can’t see any reason to expect that they will systematically favour challengers rather than incumbents.
A safe seat is one that it unlikely to change hands from one decade to the next. It is quite possible for the winner to poll in the 30s and always win. It is quite possible that such a seat becomes more marginal under AV or other preference voting system.
“a cadre of experts within specialist policy areas”
There’s nothing stopping them standing for election to the House. And going by the low esteem the public holds politicians in general they would probably have a clear advantage over the Party hacks and Special Advisors that are often picked. In fact the main plank of Nick’s Yes to AV argument is one against electing the usual Party hacks so surely he would welcome this ?
Yes, certainly it’s POSSIBLE. But it’s also possible – with roughly the same likelihood, I’d have thought – that the seat will become safer under AV.
“There’s nothing stopping them standing for election to the House.”
Indeed not, but I would hope that the revising chamber, given the nature of its job, could pick from a wider pool of talent than the jaded and vinegary political hacks who populate the commons, and that includes those who are willing to serve even if they are unwilling to kiss babies.
AV, essentially means an unpopular candidate, disliked by the majority cannot win; politicians have to look to convince more than half of all voters in their constituency that they are worth voting for.
It also means that individual voters can choose who they want to win, what preferences they have amongst the other candidates, and know that they can express those preferences without risking who they don’t want getting in due to their decision; no longer need people hold their noses and vote for the slightly better of two bad options, but they can give the one they actually want the most their best possible chance of winning.
I want a real democracy in which every citizen’s vote truely counts and that can only come about with a proportional system which AV isn’t. As a British citizen I despair of Labour and Tory ever giving me that right. Should we all realise that democracy in this country doesn’t exist and will never exist or should we get off our knees and fight for it like the people of Egypt did?
“Should we all realise that democracy in this country doesn’t exist and will never exist or should we get off our knees and fight for it like the people of Egypt did?”
Perhaps we might recognise that you believe that democracy does not exist for you, certainly I would be unwilling to stretch the conclusion further as it has no bearing on me, or for that matter the majority of the 20m voters who didn’t vote lib-dem at the last election.
@ Barry
“I want a real democracy in which every citizen’s vote truely counts and that can only come about with a proportional system which AV isn’t.”
Well if you vote down AV, you can kiss goodbye to any chance of a vote on PR for another 60 years. Do you think the other parties would waste any time in saying a No vote meant voters had rejected electoral reform?
Basically, if you vote against AV, you are voting for FPTP and against electoral reform of any kind.
Well if you vote down AV, you can kiss goodbye to any chance of a vote on PR for another 60 years. Do you think the other parties would waste any time in saying a No vote meant voters had rejected electoral reform?
Nick Clegg scuppered any chance of getting PR for another 60 years when he agreed to a referendum on AV.
Whatever the outcome of this one, the Westminster machine will consider the matter settled. There is no way on God’s Green Earth there will be another poll on Commons elections in our lifetimes.
“Nick Clegg scuppered any chance of getting PR for another 60 years when he agreed to a referendum on AV.”
You make it sound like he had a choice. He didn’t.
Nick Cleggs Speech spot the error..
“And we can change the way we vote so that no one’s vote is wasted and MPs are forced to work harder to win and keep your support.”
So can someone please explain how my vote in Devon South West will count (unless I vote Tory). It’s a rubbish system people who live in real safe seats such as the one I now live in will still have wasted votes….
You make it sound like he had a choice. He didn’t.
Of course he had a choice. He could have done nothing at all, and the momentum behind the arguments for electoral reform would have continued to grow. Instead in an act of political premature ejaculation he blew it all on a meaningless little crumb tossed to him by the Tories.
“He could have done nothing at all, and the momentum behind the arguments for electoral reform would have continued to grow.”
I’m sorry, what momentum? There is no evidence that any useful majority is strongly in favour of changing electoral systems, particularly so now when we are in the middle of a national economic disaster.
This is not to say that lots of people are not in favour of political reform, but the argument is much broader than merely electoral systems.
Well, we’re spoiled for choice, aren’t we? But then again, Clegg has never had much of a reputation for factual accuracy.
“Less safe seats” … “no wasted votes” …
And then there’s “politicians will need to aim to get half of their constituents to choose them.” I’m not sure what “need to aim to get” is meant to convey, but it obviously won’t be the case that they’ll need the support of half of their constituents. In fact they won’t necessarily even need the support of half of those who vote.
Looking at more of that speech, we really ARE spoiled for choice.
“we use it [AV] to elect the Mayor of London” ????
Is there no limit to this man’s ignorance?
Once again Nick Clegg demonstrates that he does not actually understand how AV works. Where’s the evidence that AV does away with safe seats?
Disappointingly, Ed Milliband doesn’t have a totally firm grasp on it either.
In this total fog of confusion that has characterised the first two days of the debate, one thing is looking increasingly clear: this referendum will be decided by spin, protest and apathy rather than an informed choice on the merits of AV.
Andrew Tennant: “AV, essentially means an unpopular candidate, disliked by the majority cannot win; politicians have to look to convince more than half of all voters in their constituency that they are worth voting for.”
Andrew, that claim is simply false. Under AV, it will be perfectly possible for candidates to win with far less than 50% support, just as they can now.
Mathematically, the share of the vote required to win goes down by 0.5% for every 1% of voters who choose not to vote for either of the first two candidates. So for example, if 20% of the voters in a particular constituency express no preference for either of the top two candidates, then the share of votes required to win is only 40%.
Srry another Gem…
“Under the Alternative Vote, there need never be another wasted vote. ”
Same argument as my last one, there will be wasted votes in at least 1/3 of seats under current constituencies.
AV prevents “safe seats” because it allows party rebels to stand against the official candidate, and takes away the problem of “vote splitting” of the party vote. For example, say the Labour expenses frauds in current safe seats had refused to resign at the last election. Under FPTP they are bullet-proof because no Labour supporter would stand against them because Labour voters would fear splitting the vote and letting a Tory in. However, under AV, an Independent Labour candidate can stand aganist the official candidate, allowing Labour voters to put each as 2nd preference. This way an effective open selection battle is fought among the Labour candidates – thus ending the safe seat.
@Stuart Mitchell – just say if you need this to be explained more.
So the 30% that actually turn out to vote decide if the voting system changes. Actually, it’ll probably be closer to 20%.
There’s going to be enough apathy and protest votes to kill AV and the whole thing will have been a waste of time and money.
@MBoy
“thus ending the safe seat”
Only if the encumbant has a challenger. It does nothing for the safe seat where the party who hold it have no internal issues. Again I quote my seat where Gary Streeter is well thought of by the local Tories. I would suggest that this is pretty much the same in the majority of the seats where encumbants get over 50% of the vote.
Not everyone on a safe seat is lazy or corupt. I may not agree with their politics, but, and this is true of Mr Streeter, I’m sure many do try hard for the local community.
MBoy
Well, I suppose that’s some kind of scenario that allows AV to reduce the number of “safe seats”, but it seems a very contrived one.
The seat would become “unsafe” only if an independent Lab/Con/LD candidate got more votes than the official Lab/Con/LD candidate. How many sitting MPs are so unpopular that that would happen? And why wouldn’t they have been deselected long before it could happen?
I think exceptional circumstances are being invoked to prop up an argument that just doesn’t make sense in the great majority of seats.
Indeed it is, Steve Way. I live in Eric Pickle’s seat of Brentwoood and Ongar which has been Tory since the year dot. If you don’t vote Tory your vote is effectively a complete waste of time. I will give serious consideration to voting for AV but I would love to see how progress to PR can be obtained afterwards. ‘Reform’ may just end there and that would be a tragedy.
MBoy – you certainly win the prize for “most imaginative invented advantage of AV”, in the face of some pretty stiff competition.
MBoy: “AV prevents ‘safe seats’ because it allows party rebels to stand against the official candidate… Under FPTP they are bullet-proof”
Two words: Peter Law.
@Stuart Mitchell
Wait, you mean if people don’t choose to express second and subsequent preferences, said preferences that they did not express will not be counted? No, some mistake surely!
I hate to have to admit this but I tried to put a neutral head on and listen to Clegg and Cameron’s speeches and on that basis I would have had to vote NO as I felt Cameron put a much better argument and it was also clearer.
I have to admit that I had already decided to vote NO having changed from a pro-PR position back to FPTP on the basis of having watched the performance of this Tory Coalition government in the way it has rode roughshod over people with absolutely no electoral mandate.
However, I have to say I just don’t get Clegg’s line that AV will affect MP expense fiddling – he seemed to be suggesting that safer seats was a factor here. I don’t think majorities have anything to do with it – if you’re a thief you’re a thief – simple as that.
@Andrew Tennant: What are you talking about? In the example that I gave you, a candidate may win despite the fact that 60% of all ballots cast do not have a mark for that candidate. In what sense has that candidate attracted the support of a majority in the constituency?
In your comments you referred to “half of all voters”. Does this “half of all voters” include people who only vote for candidates ranked third or less, or is this some special meaning of the word “all” that excludes them?
Sorry, minor correction below :-
@Andrew Tennant: What are you talking about? In the example that I gave you, a candidate may win despite the fact that 60% of all ballots cast do not have a mark for that candidate. In what sense has that candidate attracted the support of a majority in the constituency?
In your comments you referred to “half of all voters”. Does this “all voters” include people who only vote for candidates ranked third or less, or is this some special meaning of the word “all” that excludes them?
Andrew
Stuart pointed out that what you said wasn’t true. It really is that simple.
@ EcoJon
“I have to admit that I had already decided to vote NO having changed from a pro-PR position back to FPTP on the basis of having watched the performance of this Tory Coalition government in the way it has rode roughshod over people with absolutely no electoral mandate.”
So, because you are pissed off with coalition policy you are backing FPTP, i.e. precisely the system that allows parties to ride “roughshod over people with absolutely no electoral mandate.”
And the prize for constructive illogic goes to……
You are backing FPTP because it will allow Labour in on the basis of buggins’ turn, allowing it to get back in power next election with around 40% of the vote, while ignoring the interests of the other 60% who didn’t vote for it.
I found Cameron quite unconvincing, the strange argument about people having two votes. Currenlty with FPTP in many constituencies 60% of the electorate have no vote at all, AV gives the opportunity for people at leat to express a their preference. Perhaps DC would prefer the Frenech system i.e. eliminating the losers and running off the first and second places the next weekend. I seem to remember we did have plurality of voting in the Unversity Constituencies, which the Tories fought hard to keep but they were eliminated by the Representation of the Peoples Act 1948. They ran these elections using STV, I suppose DC would suggest that people need a Degree to unsderstand that. It is true that many can’t understand NC’s argument about expenses,perhaps you need a degree to understand that you can take your consituents for granted if you are in a safe seat su[pported by your ‘Tribalisats.
It’s certainly depressing that the arguments being pushed by BOTH sides are so bogus.
But perhaps that tells us something about the merits of both FPTP AND AV.
I found David Cameron patronising in the extreme but then it wouldn’t be the first time he came across that way. AV isn’t really all that difficult to understand.
@Stuart Mitchell
Allow me to clarify – more than half of all voters expressing a preference for the final voting round; if people choose to ignore their added potential for choice, and use AV like FPTP, oddly enough, it has the same flaws and drawbacks.
The Australian system AV doesn’t seem to have been a great success.
Sorry meant to add http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esy/esy_au
Some people get so self-righteous about AV.
To be honest it does not excite me tat all as it is only a small step in the direction of PR and may actually make PR less likely.
What does annoy me though is this attack on people who say they support reform but will vote No as a way to humiliate Clegg. I think this is a rational approach to take and it depends where your priorities lie.
If you believe that opposing the cuts/NHS reform/fiddling of boundaries (only seats to be exempted from the 5% limit are Tory/LD) is more important than AV then undermining the stability of the Coalition is a benefit and the best way to do that is to weaken Clegg. A Yes vote will probably strengthen his position and allow the Coalition to run to its disastrous conclusion. Even if you support AV then this is a case for voting No
It may not be the best way to manage the situation but when you are trying to oppose something then any democratic means are justifiable.
@bazsc
I’m afraid I must disagree with your conclusions, although I will be voting no.
I do understand anger at Clegg and the manner of the coalition and have made many comments along these lines myself. But, if Attila the Hun made a proposal for a voting system that I believed in I would vote for it. If the referendum offered a change I believed in, even if it would help Clegg I would probably vote for it.
The only reason to vote for or against this measure should be it’s merit. Parties can be punished at the various polls, but the referendum should be on the issue.
Unfortunately the standard of debate looks like it wil be pretty poor. Clegg’s speech today, and the no campaign when discussing cost yesterday have both included misleading statements that are just untrue….
@Robert C
Seems you think that Labour will win the next GE under FPTP – I personally was quite happy to let the voters decide between the Tories and Labour although I would tend to agree with your prediction although I don’t regard it as buggin’s turn but more a defensive reaction by a wide swathe of the electorate against a savage ideological attack by a Tory Coalition propped up by the LibDems – obviously the LibDems will be destroyed so they won’t count in the equation after the next GE whether it’s FPTP or AV.
However interesting to watch the prerssure go on – your’e happy for a possible minority of the electorate to vote in AV or indeed reject it in the referendum – doesn’t sound much like democracy to me considering the fundamental constitutional change that is proposed.
Having watched how irresponsibly Clegg has handled having political power and doing nothing to curb Tory ideology while ordinary people are ground into the dust I am amazed that you believe any sane person would want Clegg to ever be near power in a coalition again.
Obviously the only way he could ever get there would be a coalition and as I actually regard him as a bigger danger to the working class than the Tories I believe I am quite entitled to vote tactically in the referendum after all isn’t that what the Tories did in OE&S?
I trust many other ordinary people will join me although I do expect that the fact the Tories are against AV will tend to make them vote YES. But everyone in our Democracy has the right to vote whatever way they want and for whatever reason or for no reason at all – seems you have a lot to learn about Democracy.
You should also read what I said a bit more carefully – I said I backed a pro-PR position and I honestly don’t accept AV as being any more PR than FPTP.
I notice you have not commented on my comments about Clegg and his strange linking of safe seats with expenses fraud and also lazy MPs although I didn’t mention the latter in my post.
@bazsc
For quite some time I’ve supported PR but not AV although I would possibly have voted for it – however the disgraceful coupling of the referendum and Cameron’s gerrymandering for solely party political gain of the LibDems and Tories means that I have decided to continue that fight in the only way left to me and that is by exercising my vote against Clegg. I really see the guy as a danger as I believe he is capable of destroying a centre/centre left LibDem party.
What also annoys me about Clegg and AV is that he sold out so cheaply and either way he has destroyed or delayed getting real PR for a helluva long time IMHO.
AV remains a miserable little compromise, I will vote no.
The bigger problem with elections is that voters make excuses like “It’s a safe seat” and don’t vote. The 1992 election in Meriden gave Iain Mills a majority of 14,669, the 1997 election saw that majority reduced to 582. If a few more Labour voters had believed it was possible, the seat would have changed hands.
jedibeeftrix makes an excellent point about the second chamber. A minority should NOT be elected and some of these could be ministers – subject to approval by a Commons committee and the opportunity to eject them when they cease to be ministers. The pool of talent from which ministers are chosen would thus be increased. If that offends democracy, perhaps all appointees to the upper chamber should be denied a vote in the House.
I also agree that STV – fairly proportional but unbelievably obtuse, with too little emphasis on the need to choose a government – would be OK for electing members to the Upper House.
Other bloggers have already pointed out why AV is even worse than FPTP. And there’s no reason to suppose it would hasten PR – Australia’s had AV for a hundred years.
Pity there’s so little chance of a sensible PR system for the Commons – FPTP plus regional top-up. It works OK in many countires and in the Scottish Parliament and London and Welsh Assemblies.
Steve Way
I respect your decision, in fact it is probably closer to mine than the one I stated.
What I was saying though is that some of the attacks on people who say they are proo-reform but who will vote No have an argument if they think by voting Yes they will strengthen Clegg and the Coalition. It is not pretty when politics is like that but it is the way of the world
I believe AV is far less important at the moment whan compared to some of the other policies and it is not surprising that this is influencing voting intention.
Viewing the referendum as just a one-issue vote is a little naïve when it is so closely linked to the Coalition and one party. No vote whether referendum, local or national is immune this.
@Andrew Tennant
“Allow me to clarify – more than half of all voters expressing a preference for the final voting round”
That’s right. Or, to put it another way, more than half of all voters who express a preference for either of the top two candidates.
Which is a rather humdrum observation and – here’s the startling thing – is *just as true of FPTP as it is for AV*. Think about it.
In fact, all FPTP has to do is throw all the votes for candidates placed third or worse in the bin and count the remaining votes again, and voila! FPTP can make exactly the same bogus 50% claim that AV does.
I can’t believe even Ed Milliband has fallen for this one…
@ EcoJon
“Having watched how irresponsibly Clegg has handled having political power”
How exactly has he handled political power irresponsibly? And precisely how much power is he supposed to have with 8% of MPs, a massive head-on media onslaught against his party and a two-party political establishment that is fossilised in conflict.
Just how responsible would it have been to let public spending rip even more than it has done and put the nation into an even bigger financial crisis, burdening younger people with an inheritance of massive public debt?
It is Labour who are showing total, utter and contemptible lack of responsibility in opportunistically opposing every single cut put forward so far.
As for protecting the working class, Labour did a pretty poor job, in my opinion. We now have a 5m strong “benefit class”, which it did nothing to resolve. As recent TV programmes have shown e.g. Newsnight Labour did nothing to sort out the situation where people are better off on benefits than in work, so condemning them to a lifetime on the bottom rung of society. It also devalued education by lowering standards (objectively demonstrated by the PISA international studies) so that most qualifications they do manage to earn within education are now meaningless and of little value in climbing the career ladder. It also failed to increase the personal allowance as the Lib Dems are doing so that lower paid jobs can actually be worthwhile compared with benefits. Instead it made things worse by abolishing the 10p tax band.
On top of this, it encouraged the banks to let rip through its lax “light touch” regulation, resulting in the current crisis being far worse in the UK than in other well managed economies like the Netherlands and Germany.
So don’t start preaching about Nick Clegg “betraying the working class”, when the impact of Labour’s actions over 13 years has been far, far worse. Labour was encouraged to do this because its support was based on just 35% of the vote i.e 20% of the population. In order to avoid upsetting its narrow client base, it failed to take tough decisions that work in the general interest of the country. It governed on a narrow and sectional basis, resulting in the mess we are now in.
This is the impact of FPTP in the UK. Government based on narrow, sectional, minority interests that neglects the longer term, wider fortunes of the country.
You REALLY need to think of a better line of defence than “We’re not as bad as Labour.” I mean, which group of voters is that meant to impress?
“A minority should NOT be elected and some of these could be ministers – subject to approval by a Commons committee and the opportunity to eject them when they cease to be ministers. The pool of talent from which ministers are chosen would thus be increased.”
I hadn’t considered that point, but i find it perfectly agreeable, and for what its worth it follows my preferred system of governance which is as follows:
AV is not a good electoral system for the House of Commons.
FPTP has the following advantages whose combination no other system can meet:
1. It provides a strong constituency link
2. It tends to provide a strong mandate for radical reform
3. It provides a manifesto mandate for reform whose success can then be judged
AV is not the answer, and nor too is PR though STV may prove to be a quite workable solution for the Lords for the following reasons:
1. Less partisan as there is less party control
2. Less legitimate (constituency link) so less likely to challenge the supremacy of the commons
3. Fundamentally different to FPTP so will draw from a different pool of talent (hopefully)
Those would be valid arguments if the referendum were between FPTP and STV, but if you look at the projections of the effect of AV on elections from 1983 onwards (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8506306.stm) you’ll see that whenever FPTP produced a Commons majority AV would also be projected to do so. And in 4 cases out of 6 the projected majority under AV would be larger than the actual majority was.
Basically, AV is a relatively small adjustment to FPTP that would give a bit of a boost to the Lib Dems, which is probably why people are finding it so hard to produce clear and valid arguments one way or the other.
I will be voting against AV because it will produce a one party state — the perpetual coalition party state with the Liberal Democrats in power for perpetuity. No thanks.
“Basically, AV is a relatively small adjustment to FPTP that would give a bit of a boost to the Lib Dems”
Granted, but that small boost will increase the likelihood of coalitions, which will dilute the post-election validity of the manifesto.
It will create centrist policy when what i want is radical policy, even if that means accepting radical policy i oppose.
If the Yes to AV wins, all future governments may well be coalitions.
So no one party could actually make a promise to the electorate that it could guarantee to keep.
So I believe we need a written constitution that a Government must adhere to. A constitution that makes it illegal to allow legal persons to rip off its citizens; to make poverty history; to make the NHS deliver treatment to a patient immediately after a diagnosis has been confirmed; a constitution that promotes personal responsibility and personal freedom. A legal system that protects the victims of crime etc.
Whilst I have made no final decision on how I will vote on the referendum . I always believed a coalition would provide a moderating influence on a parties more extreme ideas. This coalition seems to have given colective responsibility for the government to throw away BOTH parties mnifestos and in several cases come out with a new truly idfiotic far right agenda.
AV is not proportinal and will only help the LIB Dems . By vaccident or design it does seem a little like qareward for collusion in areas for which neither party has a mandate to pursue.
Hardly puts a guy in a mood to reward such behaviour with another second rate electoral system.
Robert Wootton
Posted 22nd February 2011 at 11:28 am | Permalink
If the Yes to AV wins, all future governments may well be coalitions.
So no one party could actually make a promise to the electorate that it could guarantee to keep.
So I believe we need a written constitution that a Government must adhere to.
@ Robert
but assuming no written consitution is coming how are you going to vote and why ?