When should the Government’s promised referendum on AV be held? That’s the question causing a fair amount of debate at the heart of the coalition.
From the simple good governance point of view, the answer is as soon as possible – because the sooner it is held, the more time there will be if AV is passed to get the law and then the administration right in good time ahead of the next general election. Late changes to election rules have been the bane of the electoral system far too often in the last decade.
The second, and more contentious, argument is over whether or not it should also be held on the same day as other elections. The up-side is that this will help raise turnout in the referendum giving its result, whatever it turns out to be, more legitimacy. Moreover, as coverage of the AV debate will predominantly be a regional and UK-wide media story, this need not overshadow local (or Scottish or Welsh media) covering local or devolved body elections. However, there would be some cost in attention given to the different elections on the same day and combining elections has a mixed record in the UK.
The politics of the issue are more about which date is most likely to produce which result. With the two coalition partners taking opposite sides in the debate, this is not an easy judgement. A referendum at a time of economic tough times, for example, will see it being held at a time when both Liberal Democrat and Conservative popularity may have taken a hit. But with the two parties on opposite sides of the debate, that may simply cancel out.
For some Conservatives the more popular the coalition, the more tempting it will be to support AV in an attempt to realign British politics around the centre-right rather than the centre-left. AV would also deal with the Conservative problems on their right flank as votes for UKIP can become second preferences for the Conservatives. (UPDATE: For more on this see the recent ResPublica post.)
Labour’s role in this could be crucial. Labour fought the general election on a manifesto committed to an AV referendum (but then they also fought the election on a manifesto committed to fixed-term Parliaments, a pledge that plenty in the Labour Party seemed happy to drop the moment it seemed like someone else would actually implement it). So far it looks as if whoever wins the Labour leadership they will be committed to supporting AV. That perhaps argues in favour of a referendum sooner rather than later as it gives less time and opportunity for Labour to change its mind.
A referendum in Spring 2011 would coincide with the elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, i.e. two bodies elected several times now by a system other than first past the post. That would see more people voting in the referendum who are therefore used to voting in elections with other voting systems, a likely mark in favour of backing AV.
In turn that helps explain why some Conservatives are keen to avoid Spring 2011 for the referendum, especially as the local elections due in England then are predominantly in urban areas rather than in the shires.
One prediction though: whatever date is picked, everyone in Government will say it’s the date they really wanted all along.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Anyone try the West Cliff Lift?
Dropping the 1p tax rise has political costs too
Matthew Sweet on conspiracy theorists and the media
A blob-chart way of dissecting Britain's prosperity failure
A matter of trust
New housing planned for Fishmore Road - Environment Agency wants more information
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
James Baillie
Tom
Bob Hale
Cassie
Joe Bourke
40 Comments
The Tories are in an interesting position on this. For them, the AV referendum will essentially be a vote on whether or not they want the coalition to continue. Vote ‘Yes’ and the LibDems are tied in for the long-haul to make sure the legislation goes through and the arrangements are in place for the next GE. Vote ‘No’ and they make the LibDems look really stupid and any residual ‘enthusiasm’ on our part for working with the Tories will disappear.
So, a possible outcome is – Labour will say they are in favour but will work behind the scenes for a ‘No’ vote; the Tory leadership will say they are against, but will work behind the scenes for a ‘Yes’ vote. Oh, and we will say what we really want is STV but we’ll work for a Yes vote. Funny world, politics
Which is legitimate enough: losing the referendum will likely kill STV off for another generation, which would be a huge setback for UK politics, while winning it will kill off most of the anti-voting-reform rhetoric and make future reform more viable.
I think that a referendum on AV, whatever the outcome, will kill off any move towards STV for many years to come. This is because it takes an age to get something as substantial as reform of the voting system of the Commons in place, and i am certain that there will be little appetite in years to come for any more changes or proposed changes after an AV referendum. Even if we get AV and use our (hopefully) increased number of seats to bargain for STV in future elections, I doubt either party will want to play with us on the issue, and that we will have to settle for less.
Fellow, LibDems, get used to AV being the most we’re going to get for at least a decade!
Firstly, the Electoral Commission were quite clear in their views after the 2007 Scottish Elections that the problems that came about as a result of having two different elections on the same day. I presume the logic would also apply to referenda, so to me that rules out having it on the same day in 2011 – although I think it’s the most likely.
Personally, I’d have preferred a vote in October of this year. The referendum could easily have been a “paving” vote, allowing the Government then to introduce the legislation over the next couple of years. It would also tie the Tories much more closely to the change, as it would be much more difficult for Tory MPs to be voting against something which the public had voted for (from memory, the Tories abstained on the Scotland Act after losing the referendum.)
Dominic – I agree with you that AV will kill off demands for STV for some time, but I think you’re being somewhat optimistic in thinking we could get a further move to STV within a decade. It will take at least two, and probably three, general elections to see how AV is working in practice and it will then probably take at least two, and probably three, general elections to make the case for STV. If we get AV, that’ll be the system we have for the next 20-30 years.
In my view, the referendum needs to be coupled with an election. Otherwise it’s hard to imagine overall turnout being more than 1 in 4. Labour supporters might not oppose electoral reform, but do they really care enough to go out and vote for it? I doubt it: not when the existing system places their party at such an advantage. I can even imagine some Liberal Democrat voters staying at home, on the basis that AV doesn’t go far enough for them. (Why they are so opposed to incremental reform is a mystery to me, especially when you consider what we’ve had this past century, i.e. no reform!) Most importantly though, tying the referendum to an election will encourage many people who might not otherwise have cared to seriously consider the issue of electoral reform.
BTW, I realise that last September Nick Clegg opposed the idea of coupling an AV referendum with the 2010 General Election. (http://tinyurl.com/35elvdt). However, the objections he raised at the time (i.e. he believed that people would be put off if the referendum was “rushed” or if it was associated with Gordon Brown) are no longer applicable!
I’m a bit bemused by the argument that AV will kill off demands for STV for twenty years.
I joined one of our parent parties in 1981. In the years since, electoral reform has been something we have campaigned for, dreamed of, and, each time we’ve been cheated by the current FPTP system, raged over. But, after 29 years of disappointment, the idea of STV being just around the corner feels fanciful.
AV (the alternative vote) would mean a (slightly) larger Lib Dem parliamentary party. More importantly, it dispels the “wasted vote” argument. It may only help a little in getting STV, but it certainly doesn’t make it less likely.
I think us getting a majority under FPTP is unrealistic. So, much as I like STV, I can’t see any situation in which it would be introduced. Not in twenty years, not in fifty. While we have an electoral system where the “wasted vote” argument prevents any other party breaking through, we’ll always have two big parties with an in-built incentive to support FPTP.
If we want a proportional system, I think AV+ is a more realistic route. If the number of top-up MPs were very small, then that may be a small enough incremental change to get through a coalition. Once the principle of AV+ is established, a future coalition might increase the number of top-ups.
And pressure for a proportional system won’d just go away. Just as under the present system, under AV we could easily see more an election result, where one party gets the most seats, but the fewest votes. Further change after AV will take years. But it was always going to take years anyway.
Not sure you are right that “shires” won’t be voting next year. No county council elections but almost all shires have two tiers and most of the District Councils (the second tier) are up next year. In my county when people say “the council” they usually mean the District Council.
This is assuming we leave it up to the politicians to decide. There’s considerable evidence that the popular vote would strongly support STV. Forcing a referendum on the issue is more practical than whipping it through Parliament, and more likely to succeed.
Andrew,”forcing a referendum on the issue” still requires the support of a majority of MP!
Why can’t we have a paving referendum on the issue like Labour had with the Scottish Parliament/Welsh Assembly.
That took place in September 1997, less than 6 months after the General Election.
It would require a relatively short and simple bill – if the referendum was passed then the detailed bill could go through Parliament.
Aside from the question of date of the referendum what about funding? In order to ensure a level playing field surely campaigns funding should be fixed with equal amounts for either side and provided by the state?
To the admins: Perhaps it is worth having a separate post to discuss this?
If we want a proportional system, I think AV+ is a more realistic route.
Why is that? AV+ has just as many, if not more, genuine problems with it than STV. It creates 2 tiers of MPs – basically a dog’s breakfast – and opponents of a proportional system would probably have more success using this argument against AV+ than they would any any argument against STV.
Without wanting to be mistaken for a fan of AV+, I think the reasons it might be an easier sell than STV are (i) it doesn’t abolish single-member constituencies (to which many people are surprisingly strongly attached), (ii) it’s slightly easier to understand because you don’t need a degree in Advanced Electonomics to work out who gets elected, (iii) it’s more like the German system than the Irish one and the irrational association of economics with anything we’re asked to vote on makes that a more positive model.
It may also be easier to get through parliament, partly for all the above reasons, partly because it can be more easily tweaked to increase the likelihood of a party with a strong plurality getting a majority.
it doesn’t abolish single-member constituencies
As far as I’m concerned, this is a major failing of AV+. People need to be made to realise that single-member constituencies suck and actually represent them a lot *worse* than multi-member.
Do voters have any difficulty understanding this? Every person I have seen talking about the importance of “constituency links” and single-member constituencies has been an MP or ex-MP. Voters seem happy enough with the multi-member MEP constituencies.
I agree with you, Jez, but just because multi-members are better doesn’t mean they’re an easier sell!
It will come down in the end to a form of the Mrs Merton Question. ” So, what first attracted you to Millionaire Paul Daniels ? ”
” So Deputy Prime Minister, what first attracted you to changing the Voting system? ”
If the widely assumed answer is that its because the government is massively behind in the polls mid austerity, that this is all about making it harder to throw the buggers out then this won’t pass. Labour have ample room to oppose the reform if they want to because the Tories have been allowed to poison the Chalice. By explicitly linking this to a reduction in MP’s and redrawn boundries which will ( its said ) cut Labour seats you won’t need to be a communications genuis to brand all of this as an attempt by a government to change the system to its advantage.
I personally think even May 2011 may be too late but if it drifts past that then I think the chances of getting the thing on the books in time for 2015 get slimmer by the day. As was pointed out up thread Labour had refferenda of Intent on Devolution very quickly the Autumn after they came to power. If this hasn’t been secured for AV and it looks like it hasn’t been then this could be a bumpy ride.
@Andrew Suffield
@Jez
Whatever the general population want, electoral reform will never happen until a majority of MPs agree to call a referendum on it. However popular STV is, I can’t see any circumstances in which that referendum would happen, while parliament is dominated by two big parties with a huge incentive not to introduce significant reform.
In other words, in order to get a decent electoral system, we need a new parliament elected by a decent electoral system. Catch 22.
The only reason a referendum on AV has been agreed by the Conservatives is because it’s a small incremental change.
I can’t see any situation where a referendum on STV would be called, but I could see further incremental changes being introduced … probably prompted by another absurdly unrepresentative election result.
It seems to me, that to introduce STV would require a fundamental change to the system. I can’t see a way to introduce it in small increments. Can you?
AV+ can be introduced in small incremental changes. First a very small number of top-up MPs, gradually a few more, until we get a more or less proportional system.
I’m not arguing against STV, it’s a better system. I think the Lib Dems should continue to campaign for it. But while campaigning for STV, we should reflect on alternative systems, inferior to STV, but vastly better than FPTP. Systems which we might have a realistic chance of convincing a majority of parliament to put to the British people in a referendum.
The point I’m making is not that AV+ is better than other systems, or that it’d be easier to sell to the electorate. Just that it might have a chance of being put to the people in a referendum.
AV+ can be introduced in small incremental changes. First a very small number of top-up MP
How exactly is that justified, though? It’s the worst of all worlds; not properly proportional, but not totally FPTP (2 tiers of MPs) either. What makes you think that that would be easier to sell to parliament than full STV (just merging constituencies basically), once we had preferential voting in place?
The AV referendum should be as soon as we can persuade our coalition allies to allow it.
But there’s the rub.
The Conservatives are worried about calling a referendum too soon. They worry that:
(a) if the referendum is won, and legislation for AV introduced, we’d have the big thing we wanted from the coalition, and we’d start to get difficult.
(b) if the referendum is lost, the coalition would collapse.
Of course, our worry is that if the referendum is held off too long, some unforeseen crisis could result in an early election, and we’d end up without a referendum.
As for how we win it. I think we will win if we campaign for the voters, and not for our own interests. To do that, we should remove the phrase “fair votes” from our lexicon. “Fair votes” sounds like the plea of losers to change the system.
We need another phrase to capture the sense of giving choice to the voter, of ending the travesty of tactical voting. “Power to the voter” doesn’t work, because it sound too Marxist. Anyone any suggestions?
@Jez
What worries MPs is: will I keep my seat in the House? And will my party have a chance of forming a government with this system? Of course, they can’t say that in public. So instead they say things like: we mustn’t have two tiers of MPs.
Incremental changes like preferential voting mean most of them keep their seats, and they still have a chance of geting a majority. The same is true of AV+, if the number of topup MPs is small. STV would mean a third of them losing their jobs.
Because these are incremental changes, the makeup of parliament wouldn’t be that different, so the same barrier to further change will remain. Any further change will have to be incremental. If we finally got AV+ with enough topup MPs to create a proportional parliament, then STV would be less scarey to MPs: they’d have a reasonable chance to remain MPs, and it would be similarly proportional. But, let’s face it, by then the country would probably have had enough of voting reform, and we’d probably just keep AV+.
Having two types of MPs is a problem under the closed party list systems the Labour party tends to favour, because the top-up MPs are effectively appointed, not elected. But if we go for the Jenkins AV+ proposal, those top-up MPs would have been directly elected, just for a much bigger constituency.
To the general public, I don’t think the idea of constituency MPs and country MPs would worry them. In fact, many will like the idea that, if their constituency MP isn’t to their taste, maybe their county MP will be.
Is everyone forgetting that we’re due to be running PR for the Lords, whatever happens?
Every person who believes in proper democracy, must not be tempted with AV. To get a referedum on AV, will kill off STV for all time.
The choices must be on the voting paper, with the question being ask.
Which voting system do you favour?
1. First past the post
2. AV
3.AV+
4.STV
This way it would be a proper consultation, giving everybody information on the different systems along with which Countries use the different type of system.
To have a part referendum will be unfair and cheating the Nation. Let’s camapign for a full consultation and all posibilties to be on the ballot paper.
The questions need to be set by the end of the year and then a 18 month camapign, including TV camapigm showing all the forms of sytem, the TV campaign must be non bias just factual.
This would give time then to make sure we are using the new (or maybe the old) way of voting in 2014 for local elections and 2015 for the General Election..
@ Marc Connolly
“I can even imagine some Liberal Democrat voters staying at home, on the basis that AV doesn’t go far enough for them. (Why they are so opposed to incremental reform is a mystery to me, especially when you consider what we’ve had this past century, i.e. no reform!)”
Your comment here presumes that AV is an improvement on FPTP. I am not yet convinced. So, being against AV is not, as you have argued, necessarily being against incremental reform.
@mpg
people being able to vote for who they REALLY want (at least on 1st preference) rather than against who they want least and candidates being elected with the, at least partial, support of the majority of the voters are of themselves a huge improvement on the current system, democratically speaking, regardless of how it might or not change the final result. the last part can make it arguably better than proportional voting methods in regards to legitimacy (that’s why my preferred method would be AV+, combining the best of both worlds).
@Ray
such a referendum would never return a clear majority since the votes would split across all 4 options (unless it’s done through an AV system ;-)).
It would also be hugely difficult to explain simply how the different systems work (especially STV!) which all have advantages and inconveniences anyway and it would turn off many voters from even bothering to vote (or encourage them to vote for the status-quo).
I’d like to know why people are so hung up on STV for the Commons?
Virtually nowhere is it used for forming national governments: the vast majority of countries using a proportional system use party lists, which I got the impression people seem to agree are bad. Germany and NZ use MMP, which in practice seems very similar to AV+, except with less localism. Only Ireland uses pure STV for the lower chamber as far as I can see… and they have more of a 2-party system than we have, with the 3rd party getting less than half the voting share what we got at the last elections.
“a pledge that plenty in the Labour Party seemed happy to drop the moment it seemed like someone else would actually implement it”
No we are not – I for one am happy to support fixed term parliaments on the basis that they take away the Prime Minister’s power to determine the date of the election and do not lead to Parliaments of more than 4 years (in line with LibDem policy btw). What I am not preprared to support is the 55% rule or 5 year fixed terms. The latter was never proposed by anyone and the former will in effect allow a minority party to carry on governing even though the majority of our representives may not want it to do so (the excecutive and the legislature are different at least in constitutional terms). There is more than one way of delivering fixed term parliments (look around the world rather than making arrogant statements about what others believe in)- and as the current proposals have never been put to the electorate they should also be the subject of a referendum.
The fixed term mechanism for the Scottish Parliment was known to everyone before the 1997 General Election and the referendum – the current proposals do not have the same democratic legitimacy.
“For some Conservatives the more popular the coalition, the more tempting it will be to support AV in an attempt to realign British politics around the centre-right rather than the centre-left. ”
The LibDems have already made their choice to align around the centre right – if you want a centre left alignment could I suggest that you come back in 20 years time.
“Labour’s role in this could be crucial”
Could I suggest therefore that you might listen to Labour’s views about timing and the question(s) to be asked before getting too fixed in your ideas.
“The LibDems have already made their choice to align around the centre right – if you want a centre left alignment could I suggest that you come back in 20 years time.”
The LibDems have done no such thing. The LibDems have aligned with the party that had the strongest mandate after a general election. Being a grown-up, responsible party they will hopefully repeat this exercise next time around.
“The LibDems have aligned with the party that had the strongest mandate after a general election.” So what your voters voted for or liberal principles , or even I daresay the inducements offered in return, had nothing to do with it?
toryboysnevergrowup: The Lib Dems made it clear that the party who had the strongest mandate would have the first right to seek to govern. That is what we said we were going to do. That is what Lib Dem voters voted for.
The Tories got the strongest mandate. They sought to govern in coalition with the Lib Dems. They made enough compromises to the Lib Dems, putting our key manifesto commitments as Government policy, that the Lib Dems saw fit to work with them. The people who voted Lib Dem got Lib Dem policies as Government policy.
“The people who voted Lib Dem got Lib Dem policies as Government policy.”
And which LibDem policies would they be:
No cuts straightaway until the threat of double dip recession had gone away? A referendum on AV (which was only offered by the Labour Party? 4 year fixed term parliments? CGT at the same rates as Income Tax? Fair increases in tax (which presumably means that a rise in VAT which disproportionately penalises the less well off is off the cards tomorrow)? Stopping the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters (was that really on Nick’s election leaflets in Sheffield Hallam)?
And in the meantime two LibDem Cabinet Ministers have already been selected for treatment by the Press. I don’t think you realise just how much the Tories are running rings around you at present!
“No cuts straightaway until the threat of double dip recession had gone away”
Given the calamitous state of the books as we now know them, a double dip recession is inevitable anyway toryboy.
Might as well get on with the dirty job, seeings as you guys are busy hiding behind the curtains. Someone’s got to do it.
…oh, and you’re right…toryboys never grow up.
“Given the calamitous state of the books as we now know them, a double dip recession is inevitable”
Well the books are slightly better than was reported at the time of the election with regard to the level of the deficit – and you will note that the OBR in its report did not think that a double dip was expected or inevitable. Or do you wish to establish some record in disowning your own independently established body?
So I’m afraid if it happens it is pretty clear that it self inflicted. And if anyone is joining the toryboys and returning to Groundhog Day 1979 I’m afraid they are in your party and not mine.
Anyway rather than letting me establish the LibDems redlines for behaviour by the Coalition – perhaps you could do it yourself??? What are you prepared not to accept from your Government??
Actually you’re right toryboy, the inevitability of a double dip recession goes back beyond the election, probably to the time of the first downleg.
And yes, I will disagree with the opinion as expressed by the OBR. It’s called news management toryboy, or managing expectations if you prefer, watch and learn.
The major problem with combined elections is surely that the official Yes and No campaigns will be separate organisations from the political parties but will presumably be using some party resources. The chinese walls for separating the election expenses and agent authorisation of literature will be ghastly. Presumably any referendum literature delivered in Wales would have to not mention the current status or probable outcome for the assembly while a Lib Dem candidate at a public meeting would have to refuse to answer questions on the referendum until he had been authorised to allocate part of the hall to the yes campaign.
Mark: “Labour fought the general election on a manifesto committed to an AV referendum (but then they also fought the election on a manifesto committed to fixed-term Parliaments, a pledge that plenty in the Labour Party seemed happy to drop the moment it seemed like someone else would actually implement it).”
I hate to bring this up once again but the Coalition have not implemented a fixed term parliament, what you have done is proposed setting up a system where the Commons will sit for a fixed 5 years unless the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats agree it’s in both parties’ political interest to dissolve Parliament earlier. That’s not setting up a fixed term parliament, that’s fixing the electoral system to the benefit of the Coalition. No-one wanted 55% until you discovered that you had 56% of the seats.
I agree that the level should have been higher (2/3 as in Scotland) but in practice, the more likely scenarios are
1) Tories want an election and the Labour party backs them (same result either threshold)
2) Lib Dems want an election and the Labour party backs them but Tories with 47% have sufficient votes to prevent it (same result either threshold)