Campaign Diary: Meeting the 'enemy'

Before the main substance of this post, just to mention that Betty - who talks to a load of people in the village - thought my leaflet was good! Mind you she'd not had a leaflet from anyone else to compare it with!

Which rather takes me to today and to meeting my Labour opponent. And doing so during what was by far the best canvass of the campaign so far - found just one Labour voter, a few 'won't say' (which I put down as against) and plenty of Conservatives. Met some old friends who'd already given me 'two ticks' in their postal votes and a woman who wouldn't say how she voted but wished me 'very good luck'!

Plus the Labour candidate plodding up the street delivering his leaflet - wearing a purple hat. Good to see some opposition - not something we've had in Bingley Rural since the end of the 1990s. At least it stops me getting asked whether anyone else was standing this year!

Finally, it's very clear that older voters see no reason to change the way we pick MPs. After all, the current system has served us pretty well for the past hundred years and more! In terms of the arguments - the real ones rather than the endless ad hom nonsense from folk like Chris Huhne - the only 'yes' argument with any purchase is the idea of an MP needing 50% or more. But even then people are unsure whether AV actually delivers this in reality.

Expecting Bingley Rural to vote solidly 'no' on Thursday.

....

Alternative votes, fairness and why we this isn't the change we need

I have watched with some interest at the evolution of arguments for and against us changing from our voting system to one called the "alternative vote". In all this what has struck me is how shallow many of these arguments are and how much they miss the essential issues around our governance.

Let's look at a couple of these arguments:

"AV will mean the end to MPs jobs for life"

This argument is best illustrated by the comment from Greg Dyke, former boss of the BBC:

"In constituency after constituency, what matters is not getting the electorate to support you but getting the party to nominate you," said Dyke, who resigned from the BBC in 2004 and is now chair of the British Film Institute.

At the national launch of the Yes to AV campaign in London, he said: "Once nominated you've got a job for life in seat after seat which is why we've got rather average politicians. AV will begin to change that."

"Politicians are going to have to work harder to get our support and work harder to keep it," he said.

"You don't get jobs for life in anywhere else in Britain today so why should you in politics?"

Mr Dyke is correct in his assertion but incorrect in saying that AV will change this - after all in roughly a third of seats the MP gets over 50% of the vote and, under AV, these MPs would have those jobs for life. I very much doubt whether Barnsley Central will elect anything other than a Labour MP and Tunbridge Wells a Tory - sounds like a job for life to me!

"AV will mean the BNP and other extremists getting elected"

Here's Sayeeda Warsi scaring us with the 'fear of fascism' line:

"AV could see candidates pandering to extremist voters - because to win a seat they will need to win the support of people whose first choices have already been eliminated," she said in an article for the Sun.

"It could have serious repercussions in constituencies where the BNP vote is bigger than normal.

"It's not hard to imagine where AV could lead in places like Dewsbury - more inflammatory campaigns, and policies which appeal to extremists."

Sorry but this isn't true either - in an AV system people are more likely to vote for smaller parties (after all they are being told their vote 'counts' more) which would include extremists like the BNP and the Green Party but I can see no circumstance where a candidate actively seeks endorsement from racist or extremist candidates - for the simple fact that, even under AV, it is first preference votes that matter most and courting fascists or communists will threaten that support.

"But is isn't fair, is it?"

The biggest argument from those advocating change is the idea of "fairness". Setting to one side the fact that no choice system delivers a fair result where there are more than two choices, we need to ask whether AV really is any more equitable that the current system. I don't believe that it is any fairer  - the results are just as distorting, there are (small) risks of non-monotonicity and some votes are accorded more value than others.

I have felt for some while that our system of governance needs attention. Indeed, the tinkering of Blair's government so as to fudge the issue of Scotland made things worse and the decision to, in effect, institutionalise political parties further extended the grip of Westminster's elite on the system. But the system by which we choose MPs is far less of a problem than the malign influence of party whips, the ability of very wealthy individuals and rich trade unions to buy political parties or the decline in parliament's influence as Executive elites in Whitehall and Brussels come to dominate decision-making.

Changing the voting system will not resolve any of these problems - yet the advocates of change seem to want us to believe that somehow, as if by magic, the democratic deficit in British governance will be waved away by switching to Nick Clegg's "grubby little compromise". What we would get as a result is just what we have now - only harder to change. We won't get the reformed party funding system we need, we won't have the 'in-out' referendum on Europe we want and we'll see the same old faces engaged in a depressing caucus race of privilege.

So I shall be voting No in the referendum on 5th May. Not because we don't need change - we surely do and urgently. But because switching the voting system isn't the change we need.

....

Back to the sideshow - why you should vote against AV

****

Since I’ve a more important election campaign to fight in May, I feel it necessary to set out the reasons why you should oppose any change to an ‘alternative vote’ system for choosing members of parliament.

1.  AV is not fairer, more proportionate or more democratic. And don’t let them tell you otherwise
2. AV presents the risk of your vote making it less likely that the candidate you want to win won’t win – that is wrong
3. AV means some people’s votes count for more that some other peoples votes – those who vote for less popular candidates, in effect, get more votes
4. AV is more complicated, more confusing and more prone to error – again disenfranchising those who make an honest mistake
5.  AV gives a disproportionate influence to smaller political parties and candidates from the fringes and extremes

However, the big reason for opposing any change is that the proposals are a political fix – a cheap compromise cooked up behind closed doors as a fig leaf for Nick Clegg to cover up his glee at joining the coalition. If introduced we won’t get better government, we won’t have more accountable MPs, we won’t rein in the growing power of political party elites, we won’t have a more effective parliament and we won’t be any more free or in control of our own lives.

The AV referendum is an insult – an expensive insult. It does not propose a better system, just a differently biased system. And as I’ve said before it doesn’t get to the heart of the problem. I argue that the method of election is a matter of monumental inconsequence next to some other concerns:

And those concerns? Firstly there is the issue of accountability. Secondly there is the matter of selection. And third there is the question of what we elect MPs to do. If our parliament debates the arcane of voting systems it does so without answering the real questions around our democracy – how we allowed MPs to get beyond the law, why those MPs (or most of them) felt empowered to indulge in an exercise of blatant exploitation and why we allow them to create a special, privileged and protected position for the political party.

None of these questions – how we hold MPs to account, how candidates are selected and what we the people want our MPs to do – are addressed by changing the system of voting. That merely creates the illusion of a substantial change without making the real changes we need. And those changes?

Direct election of the executive
Terms limits for all politicians at whatever level
The power of recall
Ending state funding for political parties
Repealing the Registration of Political Parties Act
Restricting all election campaigning to the promotion of individual candidates

Without these changes the voting system – how we choose – is of little or no relevance and will do nothing to restore public confidence in politics, let alone enthusiasm!

 ....