The votes are in, and counted. The wait is over but for the YES camp it’s the bad news we’ve been dreading, and reform of Westminster elections is now lost for many years at least. So what does a NO vote mean for the future?
For the Liberal Democrats as a party, it’s undoubtedly a bitter pill to swallow having carried the flag of electoral reform for years. The referendum on AV was the jewel in the crown of the coalition concessions, the final offer that made coalition possible. For many activists a change in the voting system has seemed like the light at the end of a tunnel, pulling us through a long dark winter filled with difficulties and self-doubt.
Now that this change has been rejected by the British people, it will be tempting for the media and our opponents to cry out, what is the point of the Lib Dems being in government?
The truth is that the Lib Dems stand for a lot more than electoral reform. AV was a large concession but part of a wider package. There are liberal reforms spread all over government. We can make a genuine claim to have tilted the balance in our direction in tax reform, education, prisons, green policy and many other areas.
In fact according to a UCL study the Lib Dems are having 75% of our manifesto delivered in the coalition, compared to 60% for the Conservatives. That is an amazing statistic and one we should be shouting from the rooftops.
We need to show that we stand for liberal policies, and that we can implement these policies maturely. Does this mean that our policy focus will have to shift away from electoral reform in future? Inevitably the answer is yes, but this doesn’t mean that our dream of changing politics away from the two-party culture is dead.
Even with first past the post, the trends indicate that hung parliaments are more likely than before. Voting behaviour influences hung parliaments, and it’s increasingly trending away from the red-blue duopoly, towards multiple other parties. As the IPPR states, the vote share for the two biggest parties was the lowest ever at the 2010 election (65.1 per cent) and has been steadily falling since the 1950s.
The possibility of hung parliaments won’t go away even though voting reform is now lost for a generation. We have to pick ourselves up and focus on this opportunity. The Liberal Democrats are the only party that seriously advocates pluralism and has taken the risk to demonstrate to the public that coalitions can work. That parties can work together even if they have many disagreements.
It was an enormous gamble given the circumstances. But the prize, if we are brave enough to take it, is that we can earn respect as a party of government, but also play a defining role in changing our political culture.
To my mind, that is well worth being in government for. Genuine pluralists should approve of us taking the plunge.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Knaptoft: The very heart of England
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Tom Arms
Ruth Bright
Tom Bailey
Alex Macfie
43 Comments
“Where does defeat for AV leave the dream of electoral reform?”
Your article doesn’t appear to answer question in the pieces title.
But, i’ll help you out by suggesting reform of the Lords, as i mentioned nearly .
I remain upbeat at the defeat of YestoAv; Av was rubbish, wasn’t what we really wanted, and history is still on our side on voting reform.
Lessons are:
Dump any reform based upon single member constituencies, demand real proportional representation next time. Nothing complex (PRSTV) – the Scottish AMS system would probably be good.
Make sure there is a genuine cross-party support for a campaign – don’t fall into the trap of refusing help from people “progressives” dislike – a UKIP, SNP or Tory vote is just as important as an Islington one.
Fight dirty from the off. Indeed, if possible, hire Matthew Elliott.
Fight competent – pitting a nice but basically useless in-house team from the ERS vs. hardline attack dogs like Labour’s online guru Jag Singh was always a bad idea.
And remember – it only took the Greeks 400 years to get rid of the Turks.
“But, i’ll help you out by suggesting reform of the Lords, as i mentioned nearly”
Not so fast!
It seems to have come as a surprise to some senior members of the party that the Tories are ruthless. I think they’re going to get a demonstration now of just how ruthless they can be:
“Senior Tory figures have told The Independent that David Cameron will not support Mr Clegg to force through Liberal Democrat plans to create an elected House of Lords … the Tories say the Coalition agreement only commits them to “establish a committee” on reforming the House of Lords and not to pass legislation on it.“
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/av/now-cameron-turns-attack-on-lib-dem-plans-for-elected-house-of-lords-2280328.html
What unmitigated folly it was to place the party’s fate in the hands of its worst enemies.
The Tories have indicated they’re opposed to Lords reform – they’ll probably still let the bill through the Commons, but expect it to be blocked by the Lords themselves and they’ve stated their intention to not use the Parliament Act to force it through.
The hope of electoral reform is basically over for this generation – we’re stuck with another 10-20 years of massive disenfranchisement.
Oh dear – if we really believed that “The referendum on AV was the jewel in the crown of the coalition concessions,” we were nieve. It was a makeweight, given by Cameron knowing it could be defeated later. If our negotiators fell for that, no wonder the Tories are tramplng all over us in the coalition.
If we don’t get out now, there won’t be anyone left to get out by 2015.
[reposted – turns out i am rubbish at this newfangled embedded hyperlink lark]
“Where does defeat for AV leave the dream of electoral reform?”
Your article doesn’t appear to answer question in the pieces title.
But, i’ll help you out by suggesting reform of the Lords, as i mentioned nearly nine months ago:
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/the-av-referendum-%e2%80%93-what-does-clegg-really-want/
Perhaps the message from the electorate is that they don’t share the (alleged) Lib Dem activist obsession with constitutional change.
We may have lost the battle but we haven’t necessarily lost the war (of electoral reform).
One thing is certain, after the backstabbing by the Tories over AV we have no future with the conservative party. I’ve always supported Nick Clegg but like any other commander after suffering such a defeat, his only course is to step down to make way for someone with different tactical skills. As Montgomery would have said in 43 – “I’ll have no more fraternizing with the enemy!” – and that’s just how we should view the conservatives. There’s a certain irony here, for had Cameron played the AV debate with honour then there could well have been a future between the Tories and the Lib-Dems but the treachery displayed has ended that. This is the other reason Nick should step down for the cosy relationship must be seen to have ended and satisfying the blood-lust of the public will also act a another bonus for the common good of the party.
I don’t think there can be any question, as perhaps it should have been in May 2010, that our future is with the Labour Party and Ed Miliband in particular. Offers of packs and alliances should be on the table from the outset and the Ace card must still be that promise of electoral reform in the Queens Speech (which must be more than just AV – which is effectively dead – and no more referendums either).
For what is planned our position is strong for we are effectively “sleeping with the enemy” It is naive to expect the electorate to reward good handling of the economy and a backlash can be expected either now or in 4 years time no matter how good a job is done. From now on every unpleasant decision (as perceived by the electorate) should be laid at the foot of the conservative party for we are definitely not in this together. We should abide our time over the following 4 years and if Cameron wants to pull the plug early, when things get unpleasant, then so be it. There is of course the possibility that Cameron might offer the electoral reform carrot himself (for the following parliament) which might throw a spanner in the works but I think rather unlikely.
With a pact with Labour in place, this final battle, when it comes, will be so critical the party must be prepared to sacrifice itself in order to ensure a strong labour majority. (naturally we defend existing seats)
We might be perceived to have lost yet another battle but the war would have been won and inexorably we rise from the ashes!
The idea that people don’t want change is ridiculous.
If I refuse a weak coffee, it doesn’t mean that I’m against a stronger coffee or would prefer to die of thirst.
The problem was AV, even the Lib Dems didn’t want AV, the Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne quotes were put about and this really didn’t help the yes campaign, the whole campaign felt like AV being something nobody wanted, but it was a concession, sometimes it’s better not to accept crumbs.
The best thing for electoral reformers to do is point out electoral reform in action.
“Shouting from the rooftops?” Actually it is a matter of great concern assuming the figure is correct that having got so many policies through we appear to be so unpopular.
I think the tests we need to check out on are the NHS reforms, banking reforms, education policy and the economy. If we can get those right then maybe the shouting can start.
“The Liberal Democrats are the only party that seriously advocates pluralism and has taken the risk to demonstrate to the public that coalitions can work. That parties can work together even if they have many disagreements.”
Sorry but after Tuition fees, the biggest reason I believe people deserted the Lib Dems was that you haven’t shown how parties work together DISPITE disagreements, the disagreements have been hidden from us mere mortals. The coalition has appeared to be a love in. I supported forming the coalition, it was the only realistic game in town, but it has been handled badly….
The often repeated claim that 75% of the LibDem manifesto is being implemented in government is a nothing claim. It is a known fact that if statements from unknown manifestos are read out to voters, many would mistakenly attribute statements to the wrong party. How much commonality was there between the LibDem, Conservative, and Labour manifestos? How much of the 25% are the policies that matter the most to LibDem voters? How much of that 75% are policies that most LibDem voters would consider to be worthwhile but not among the issues at the top of their agenda?
Take AV for example, no one would claim that electoral reform is a hot topic among the general public. An important issue, yes; but not one that ranks highly among the general public. But yet we see this being the one issue that has exercised the LibDem leadership the most. Not tuition fees, not the cuts, not the NHS reorganization, no, the Tory action that has angered the LibDem leadership the most is on electoral reform.
If you want the electorate to believe that LibDems are serving a purpose then you need to deliver on things that people feel actually matter to them.
If you think they aren’t angry about other things then you’re a fool. This is just the only one where it’s been agreed that they can air their grievances in public. (The Tory NHS plans are dead in the water, incidentally)
What we need most is an end to the cabinet collective responsibility rule. It’s not working.
There are a number of lessons from the AV result –
Dont ask the Voters what they think are boring/unimportant questions or they will answer some other question they prefer, eg ” do you like the Cuts or are you enjoying the Recession”.
The NO campaign ran lots of Ads saying AV would be a roadblock on the way to PR. They cant convincingly argue that the result was a verdict on Electoral Reform in general. Of course they will try it on but in this case they were to clever for their own good.
PR for The Lords will go ahead, its in The Coalition Agreement & All 3 Major Parties had a commitment to HoL “Reform”. Tory Peers will find it very hard to argue that there is no Mandate for Reform.
2015 will see another Hung Parliament, this issue is not going away.
I doubt very much whether 2015 will see a hung parliament, Nick Clegg is toxic, the Lib Dem support in local elections has traditonally been higher that in general elections, 2015 will be a straight fight between Labour and the Tories, there will be a majority.
Lessons from the AV referendum –
You won’t get PR with out a referendum. It is, as it always was, a long game.
Go for PR combined with the single member constituency – people may accept PR if the single member constituency is retained and voting is FPTP simple.
Avoid making claims for the system. Stick to the facts. (Claims will just be refuted, and the argument leads to confusion.)
As far as possible stick of the process (The process has to be very simple)
Both voting and counting has to be simple and quick.
Ditch STV, it’s a dead weight on electoral reform. You can’t sell it in a referendum, so it’s time for a rethink now.
Jason – “had Cameron played the AV debate with honour then there could well have been a future between the Tories and the Lib-Dems but the treachery displayed has ended that”
hyperbole much?
really, what treachery?
you do realise that the tories did not want to change from FPTP, so having extracted a referendum did you also expect them to hand you a “yes” result too?
“Where does defeat for AV leave the dream of electoral reform?”
It leaves it as a dream for some years to come, at least as far as the Commons is concerned. If by reform we mean significant improvement, a Yes vote would have been as bad a result – possibly worse, since, having trumpeted how great AV was supposed to be, it would have been difficult to argue the opposite anytime soon.
So now the Lib Dems must get their heads down and get on with the business of government – but as partners not poodles.
@ Jedibeeftrix
“really, what treachery?”
The “she needs a new heart hospital, not a new voting system” kind of treachery. Does that mean we get more money for hospitals since AV failed? Yeah right. Or how about the treachery where the Tories sent out leaflets saying AV leads to broken promises with a photo of Clegg, even though Clegg actually broke his promises for the sake of the Tory Party.
By my definition, that is treacherous and downright cold. Many of us warned you, but you decided that Labour was the enemy and the Tories were our friends. So, go on, blame Labour instead of the Tories (or yourselves) for AV losing.
@squedle “The “she needs a new heart hospital, not a new voting system” kind of treachery. Does that mean we get more money for hospitals since AV failed? Yeah right. Or how about the treachery where the Tories sent out leaflets saying AV leads to broken promises with a photo of Clegg, even though Clegg actually broke his promises for the sake of the Tory Party.”
What a load of rubbish. Do you think Lib Dems have never produced leaflets comparing two sets of costs?
And the only person we have to blame for tuition fees is Vince,not the Tories.
We told the tories av would mean no more majority Tory governments. No surprise they fought a tough campaign
The more relevant question is where the defeat for voting reform leaves the Liberal Democrats. One point worth noting is that of the 32% who supported a fairer voting system, about half voted for the Liberal Democrats and about half didn’t. The only prospect that second half have of seeing a fair voting system in their lifetime is if we can win them over to voting for us in local and national elections, since it is quite clear that neither the Tories nor the Labour Party will ever support a fairer system whilst they and their paymasters continue to benefit from the current system’s unfairness.
@ Squeedle –
i’m afraid that’s just the nature of adversarial politics, and as noted above they yes campaign did not exactly cover themselves in glory either.
@Squeedle Posted 8th May 2011 at 4:46 am
“The “she needs a new heart hospital, not a new voting system” kind of treachery”
I’ve read that this poster was actually a brain wave from a Labour campaigner – if you want to see the difference between how the 2 campaigns operated you may wish to read:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/avstory/2011/05/av-could-only-be-defeated-if-a-large-number-of-labour-supported-voted-to-keep-first-past-the-post-an.html
Yes I know it’s Conservative home, but it may actually give you real pointers on how No won by running a proper cross party campaign. As for treachery, well Yes immediately lost over 30% of the vote by telling Conservative voters that the whole point of the campaign was to ensure that only a “progressive” alliance could win, whilst No were trying to build their bridges, Yes were burning theirs by then telling people they were dinosaurs, stupid etc etc etc.
Basically, I think Yes went for an election campaign, No went for a referendum campaign.
Given the amount of ignorance and apathy in the general public about AV, we need to make sure that our children are educated to understand the way government in this country works at all levels; hopefully, they’ll see the need for reform and agitate for it.
Teach civics in schools as part of the curriculum from the start, even infants are aware something is happening when there is an election, most of them get a day off, or part of their school is out of bounds.
@Jedibeeftrix
“you do realise that the tories did not want to change from FPTP, so having extracted a referendum did you also expect them to hand you a “yes” result too?”
I used the word “honour” which to me means you don’t resort to downright lying!
The AV vote was very likely lost either way and indeed I believe the concept of a referendum was ill thought from the very outset. Ashed in ignorance then it’s clear to me, as asked, the default answer would be “NO” anyway
If you really must ask the electorate such questions then what is required is mass education – not lies and miss-information.
For example, putting an “X” on NO because you don’t like a certain MP has zero relevance to the question asked.
@ Jason Shouler Posted 8th May 2011 at 10:19 am
“I used the word “honour” which to me means you don’t resort to downright lying”
You do realise that, by your own definition, Yes were also without honour?
Also, LDP members may want to read this before making NC the total scapegoat:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13325236
@ Chris_SH
a fascinating link you put there.
the conservative home article discussing why the no campaign won is an almost perfect mirror of my comments on why the yes campaign lost.
the “no” campaign invited labour in the from the start and made a totally integrated effort to appeal to both the left and the right.
by contrast the “yes” campaign did not know how to talk to non-progressives, and could not enter into reasoned debate that might persuade those people of the case for change.
the default attitude was scorn and anger because anyone foolish enough to support “no” must by default be an unprincipled scoundrel or a useful idiot for unprincipled scoundrels.
@ Jedibeeftrix Posted 8th May 2011 at 11:26 am
Thanks – found by accident when on Google – I’d not been to Con Home for quite some time so almost missed it. I agree it is pretty much what you (and others to be fair) have been saying.
What’s really worrying is that the Yes camp can’t seem to see it and, as the saying goes, if you don’t learn from your mistakes you are condemned to repeat them. That may be overly pessimistic on my side though, perhaps after a period of reflection they’ll realise that they could have done a lot lot better.
@chris_sh
“You do realise that, by your own definition, Yes were also without honour?”
Really, perhaps you’d like to elaborate. They may have taken on issues that had no real relevance (expense scandal for example) but I was never aware of a single lie throughout the whole campaign.
Th NO campaign was in a hopeless position from the very outset at being able to offer any reasoned debate to defend FPTP and so instead resorted to the sort of attacks one might expect of a US presidential campaign.
Anyone who seriously thinks the result of this referendum reflects the electorates views on the merits of AV are deluded in the extreme. I was active on the day and I can tell you it was disconcertingly easy to persuade, those open to debate (conservative voters mainly), of the merits of AV. The vast majority however were closed to any discussion and clearly intended voting based on media influence.
“Anyone who seriously thinks the result of this referendum reflects the electorates views on the merits of AV are deluded in the extreme.”
I pity those seeking to win the public over to future electoral reform if this is the attitude.
“They may have taken on issues that had no real relevance (expense scandal for example) but I was never aware of a single lie throughout the whole campaign.”
Well, I think the single most outrageous one was that the leader of the Conservative Party was elected by “a form of AV.” But there were a lot more less spectacular ones.
Where does the AV debacle leave the call for wider electoral reform- it obviously hasn’t done it much good but has it done it terminal harm?
Surely, the AV vote has rammed home the need to ditch preference systems. Anything new needs to be proportional without changing the premise that a vote is a positive endorsement of a candidate/party. We need to look at systems that gives a voter one X to put on the ballot paper and that means re-visiting party list versions of PR.
What I think, however, is not the point because any new proposal needs as wide a support as possible. It can’t be seen as a Lib Dem option or a Nick Clegg option that other parties and personalities may think of as marginally better than the status quo.
As a first move I’d suggest a commission to look at upper house reform is no bad idea as long as it does not equate to kicking the idea into the long grass.
“We need to look at systems that gives a voter one X to put on the ballot paper and that means re-visiting party list versions of PR.”
Even were it possible for me to endorse the principle of proportional representation, i would never support party-lists in the Commons as it gives the party too much power and the constituency too little influence.
“I pity those seeking to win the public over to future electoral reform if this is the attitude.”
Well, I’d have to say on reflection the idea of holding a referendum at all was quite a stupid one.
A Plato once commented with something along lines “Questions of governance are best answered by the ruling elite since putting the question to the proletariat is just asking for trouble.”
I’m not sure too much has changed in 2500 years!
“Questions of governance are best answered by the ruling elite since putting the question to the proletariat is just asking for trouble.”
That rather reminds me of a quote from my recent AV article:
“The electorate is allegedly composed of adults of legally sound mind, so any argument that the referendum was lost because the “no” campaign didn’t play fair is really a confession that people cannot be trusted with representative democracy. Why not be honest about the implications of that confession? Stop pussy-footing around with electoral tinkering and just advocate the benign governance of technocrats, like the EU or perhaps the PRC……..”
It seems disturbingly appropriate all of a sudden!
@Jason Shouler Posted 8th May 2011 at 12:20 pm
“Really, perhaps you’d like to elaborate. They may have taken on issues that had no real relevance (expense scandal for example) but I was never aware of a single lie throughout the whole campaign.”
How about 2 simple illustrations, both from one of your champions – Paddy Ashdown:
“..no more safe seats – ever..”
“Never again will we have more people voting against their MP than actually voted for him when he was elected..”
@chris_sh
“..no more safe seats – ever..”
An exaggeration perhaps (since many seats are won with over 50%) but hardly a downright lie.
“Never again will we have more people voting against their MP than actually voted for him when he was elected..”
This is the 50% preference rule which again imparts a slight exaggeration (you assume the winning MP is unwanted by all other voters under FPTP – whilst of course under AV you’d know for certain – provided preferences are used)
I was of course referring to outright lying in the NO camp such as:
“AV allows the BNP in”
“You get multiple votes under AV”
@Jason Shouler @ Posted 8th May 2011 at 7:56 pm
ROFL
So Yes were guilty of exagerating the truth all the time and no were guilty of telling outright lies 😀
Well, it’s the first thing from the Yes camp that has brought a smile to my face anyway
AV wasn’t the jewel in the crown, it was the 2nd biggest error, after tuition fees.
How much better to have secured STV for any of : local government, mayoral elections, the scottish and welsh assemblies or the euro elections.
Arguing for something we didn’t believ in was always going to be hard. Many of the yes camp arguments e.g. parties ought to have 50% support before being represented were the complete opposite of support for PR.
A more honest campaign saying AV was not what we wnated but was a step towards PR might have done better.
As it was it ended up like tuition fees, saying you wnat one thing then asking people to accept another.
Electoral reform has been set back, but in the end, FPTP will be intolerable in a 21st Century democracy.
Watch Labour embrace PR after scottish independence
“Watch Labour embrace PR after scottish independence”
lol, i wouldn’t count on it.
@ Jedibeeftrix… I’d prefer an open party list form of PR for the Commons but I’m not wasting my time advocating that now, soon or possibly ever!
I’m suggesting if we (i.e. the reform minded rather just Lib Dem members) are seriously looking to push Lords reform we should re-visit party list PR for second chamber elections.
There is no perfect system but party lists are much simpler than STV, can keep the principle of one X on the ballot paper and are proportional.
i am not a fan of PR, and and happy that we have retained a plurality system for the commons.
that said, it would appear lords reform is inevitable and i am mindful of the desire to avoid congruent bicameralism, so i remain open-minded to PR in the lords.
as to which type………. that will require more thought.