James Graham (Quaqeuam blog): Stuart Weir's summary of the Combining All Our Strengths seminar on electoral reform
was interesting, but it was disappointing to hear so much consensus
(group think?) around the idea that the only electoral game in town is
the alternative vote. It is disappointing because we have
heard this coming out of the Labour camp and some senior Lib Dems for
several years now and yet so little progress has been made. If
a Labour government was ever going to make this reform, it would have
had to have done so from a position of strength not at a time when it
is most vulnerable.
Usually
presented as the ultimate insider fix, if Labour reformers are serious
about this by now they should be able to name at least 100 Labour MPs
who are signed up to AV. The fact that instead we just
hear the names of the usual suspects (Peter Hain, Charles Clarke, John
Denham, possibly Jack Straw on a good day) suggests that the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform (LCER), Fabians et al
really ought to spend a little less time telling the rest of us to fall
in line and a little more time shoring up their own support.
I
would summarise the push for AV as a call for a lot of pain in exchange
for very little gain. Pushing through this reform will mean facing down
the combined might of every single minority party, the Conservatives,
the media and a large proportion of the Labour Party. Even if the Lib Dem leadership were convinced of this strategy (which I doubt), a lot of the grassroots will be in uproar. It
will mean convincing the potential activist base to curb their
enthusiasm and compromise on almost everything that they believe in -
that tends not to work as much of a motivator. For every
supporter of first past the post who might be prepared to compromise on
AV there will be a supporter of proportional representation who would
not. The whole thing reeks of stalemate and Whitehall farce.
For
three manifestos in a row, Labour has stated that any change to the
electoral system for the Commons would be subject to a referendum. Supporters
of AV may believe the change they are proposing is small enough to not
trigger this pledge and it could be rushed through before the next
general election. They may well be right but it is highly doubtful their most stringent opponents and the general public will feel the same way. For
many the journey is as important as the destination and forcing through
any constitutional reform by the back door without broad cross-party
support - whether it is the Lisbon treaty, detention without charge or
even a change in the electoral system - is simply unacceptable.
If this were a rational debate I would expect a lot of opponents of AV to be wild supporters of it and vice versa. For many Labour AV supporters and their Tory opponents, AV would be a way of keeping the Conservatives out of power forever. A "progressive alliance" of Labour and Lib Dem voters would ensure they never got close. The problem with this theory is that it is 10 years out of date. As
Stuart states, it largely draws on the Democratic Audit's research in
1997 which found that under AV the Conservative rout in the general
election that year would have been even greater. This was based on (well founded) notions about Lib Dem and Labour voters' priorities, yet these priorities have changed. In 2005 we already began to observe what was dubbed "tactical unwind"
and this year we saw Lib Dem voters in London split evenly between Ken
Livingstone and Boris Johnson - an unthinkable turn of events back in
2000.
Even
if you do still buy into the idea that there is some kind of
progressive alliance, you shouldn't be blind to the fact that in a
number of recent opinion polls recently, the combined Labour and Lib
Dem support was smaller than the Conservatives' share. If an AV general election had taken place last month, Labour would have been wiped out. Under FPTP their inbuilt advantage would have given them some modicum of protection. So in the best Yes, Minister
sense of the word, it is certainly "brave" of Labour supporters to call
for AV, but they should be clear that what they are calling for is not
a safety net but a high wire act.
Given all that, it is surprising to me that people continue to bang the AV drum given the alternatives. A
fully proportional system for the House of Commons may not be an
option, but a semi-proportional one such as 3-member STV (the system
used for local government in Scotland) would appear to be a much neater
compromise. Big swings wouldn't distort the result. There would still be a strong constituency link. Boundaries could be set quickly (it doesn't take a genius to bunch three constituencies together). Voters
would still have a greater choice of candidates but in most cases
parties would still only field one or two per constituency. Parties
interested in gender and ethnic balance could adopt quota-based systems
for candidate selection which are likely to be far less divisive than
all-women and all-BAME shortlists. Fundamentally, it
would certainly not be any harder to implement at a Westminster level
and in some respects could be a great deal easier.
Finally, there is a tactical reason why electoral reformers ought to avoid an explicitly pro-AV strategy. You should never enter any negotiation by compromising as far as you are willing to go; it leaves you with no wriggle room. If
there really is no prospect of getting anything other than AV past the
political establishment, then asking them politely to do so is not
likely to achieve anything; worse, it could lead to a national rolling
out of the disastrous and offensive Supplementary Vote system. In
my view this has been the underlying flaw at the heart of the LCER
strategy for a number of years now, which is why so little progress has
been made. Far better to make the case for meaningful electoral reform first while being prepared to fall back on AV as a compromise.
Comments
Very well written and persusive! I was at the seminar. It seemed to me that there was an element of quiet desperation (we could get this in our lifetimes it is now or never) backed up by a fingers-crossed hope that if we have AV, though it is indeed likely to do worse for Labour not better this time, the whole process will be opened up and more change will become possible.
Humm.
My basic view is that Westminster sovereignty was not designed to be democratic, but to produce 'strong' executive power that could be changed peacefully to another 'strong' executive power (longish historical argument here about the 19th century). Therefore the system is immune to rational argument about itself. Change has to come from somewhere else.
An excellent analysis of the 'constitutional corner' Labour has driven itself into from James and Anthony is also spot on with his final remark
Labour cannot now change horses in midstream - it is committed to FPTP for the next general election and unless some form of catastrophic electorally damaging event befalls the conservatives and/or an extremely unlikely set of beneficial economic circumstances unfold in the next twelve months - so Labour will be out of office and DC will be installed in Number 10, probably on the back of a record low turnout and a similar total of actual votes garnerned by Labour during the 2005 election; hardly the overwhelming mandate to govern "strongly" that the Conservatives will doubtless claim.
For me the only electoral outcome under FPTP liklely to generate momentum for radical change is a hung parliament. Nine months ago that looked distinctly possible but not any more. The only other avenue for change lies with the general public itself but I perceive no massive groundswell for change. It is therefore up to campaign groups like ours (Unlock Democracy and MVC) to begin gearing up now to exploit the window of opportuntiy, which will present itself around Feb-March-April of 2010, to disseminate the message about real/meaningful electoral reform to a populace at least willing to listen during that period of heightened public interest/awareness in matters of a political-democratic nature.
At least that is what I am trying to do in Greater Manchester but this strategy must be pursued UK wide if it is to have significant impact.
Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England
James,I think you are not at all far away from the mood of several of those supporters of PR at the meeting in your own conclusion of "make the case for meaningful electoral reform first while being prepared to fall back on AV as a compromise".* I think all supporters of PR should agree that AV has several advantages over first-past-the-post. (At the same time, I find it difficult to see what advantages the current system has over AV, from any informed perspective, even for those who prefer majoritarian to PR systems).* A different question is one of reform strategy/tactics for supporters of PR. Are you further away from PR if AV was introduced (because the system has been changed once?). Or are you better placed to try to make AV a building block to further reform, because there is now a preferential voting system for the Commons (alongside PR systems elsewhere in the UK?). The balance of views seems to tilt towards the latter conclusion. There does not seem to be any effective political strategy for full PR quickly, and this does keep the reform debate open and involve more people in it.* A third question: could enlarging the context change this debate? The PR/FPTP debate seems to have been insulated from broader constitutional reform.I think the case for AV for the Commons is considerably stronger with a PR-elected second chamber, and that this would be a necessary part of a reform package. I also think there is a good case for reform in local government. (One imaginative and quick way to do this would be to immediately convert all X voting in the UK to 1,2, 3 voting as a way of reforming the Commons system, and at the same time delivering a mixture of STV and AV in local government).I think the Jenkins Commission put a good case for combining some towards majority governments with greater proportionality. With a broader set of constitutional checks and balances, my personal view (as somebody who has been sympathetic to PR) is that there is a good principled as well as pragmatic case for AV in the Commons. But in that broader context, I think there are a growing number of principled PR supporters who can see a pragmatic case for AV, if only as an imperfect compromise and possible stepping-stone.
Sunder
You are correct in stating that principled (I hope that includes someone like me; non-aligned politically but an active UD and MVC member) supporters of PR (I strongly advocate multi-member STV) can see a pragmatic case for AV but only if it is a stepping stone to real reform, i.e. proportionality.
However, the Labour Party has 'previous' in the duplicitous behaviour department. Their strategies at the highest level have always been driven by naked party political advantage, hence the cynical reneging on the manifesto promise made in 1997, largely at the urging of FPTP dinosaurs like Straw, Prescott et al at the time. There was never any intention of acting honourably or in a statesmanlike manner and delivering on said manifesto promise once the overwhelming Commons majority had been secured.
I recently attended a Fabians (in Greater Manchester) organised meeting as a speaker alongside David Chaytor (one of the more principled Labour MP's) and whilst we concurred on many themes raised during the evening, I was gobsmacked when David (in response to an audience question) claimed that Blair had been right to ditch the referendum promise on the Jenkins proposals back in '98' but had committed a gross tactical error in not going for electoral reform (presumably AV) in 2005/6.
This utterly cynical approach is indicative of Labour Party strategy and demonstrates perfectly why the democratic framework should always be, in constitutional terms, 'ringfenced' from potential political interference. The UK's unwritten constitution effectively allows political factions to make the rules up as they go along in this vital area - hence Stuart Weir's narrative about "Rotten Parliaments"
With a track record like that it is hardly surprising hard nosed democracy campaigners treat any Labour Party utterance concerning electoral reform with total disdain. Put quite simply ; we've heard it all before!
So in the same vein as Alex Ferguson checking under the sauce for the pasta, my response to Labour displaying a sudden interest in AV is similarly cynical and you should not be shocked to discover that this sentiment is widespread amongst the public.
Finally I pose one crucial question:
What is the primary purpose of an election
Is it
a) To elect a government to govern?
or
b) To facilitate an expression of collective political preference on the part of the electorate?
Put simply, when push comes to shove, which comes first; exercising political power or adhering to democratic principles?
Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England
"Far better to make the case for meaningful electoral reform first while being prepared to fall back on AV as a compromise"
Nobdody supporting electoral reform would disagree with this. However, I suggest that we have reached the point where, facing hard political facts, we do not have any choice but to "fall back".
It seems to me that there is now not a chance of PR’s being introduced before the next election because there is no time to arrange for the necessary boundary changes. AV - even with a referendum - could be introduced quite quickly. It may well be that the left-of-centre advantage, that AV might have expoited in 2000, no longer exists; and that therefore AV would not help Labour in 2010.
However, if the Tories were to get in under FPTP in 2010 (as seems increasingly likely) we could say goodbye to electoral reform indefinitely. If they got in under AV they would, I suggest, find it very difficult to revert to FPTP for future elections.
Moreover, having got rid of FPTP people would have learned that there are indeed other ways of electing our representatives (not obvious to the majority at present). This fact together with the probable change to STV for the Scottish Parliament, the long-standing existence of STV for Stormont , and the probable resulting clamour for common electoral boundaries, would ease the evolution from AV (ie STV in single-member consituencies) to STV in multi-member constituencies.
I do not favour the three-member STV system - it is not very proportional - and once introduced would probably stick. In any case it would be no easier to intrdoduce this system before the next election than it would be to introduce true PR.
"Far better to make the case for meaningful electoral reform first while being prepared to fall back on AV as a compromise"
Nobdody supporting electoral reform would disagree with this. However, I suggest that we have reached the point where, facing hard political facts, we do not have any choice but to "fall back".
It seems to me that there is now not a chance of PR’s being introduced before the next election because there is no time to arrange for the necessary boundary changes. AV - even with a referendum - could be introduced quite quickly. It may well be that the left-of-centre advantage, that AV might have expoited in 2000, no longer exists; and that therefore AV would not help Labour in 2010.
However, if the Tories were to get in under FPTP in 2010 (as seems increasingly likely) we could say goodbye to electoral reform indefinitely. If they got in under AV they would, I suggest, find it very difficult to revert to FPTP for future elections.
Moreover, having got rid of FPTP people would have learned that there are indeed other ways of electing our representatives.(a fact of which the majority at present seem ignorant) This fact together with the probable change to STV for the Scottish Parliament, the long-standing existence of STV for Stormont , and the probable resulting clamour for common electoral boundaries, would ease the evolution from AV (ie STV in single-member consituencies) to STV in multi-member constituencies.
I do not favour the three-member STV system - it is not very proportional - and once introduced would probably stick. In any case it would be no easier to intrdoduce this system before the next election than it would be to introduce true PR.
Joe Patterson
Upper Norwood
London
Post new comment