openDemocracyUK

Against AV: a final response to Andy White

The conclusion of an OurKingdom conversation between Stuart Weir and the Electoral Reform Society's Andy White
Stuart Weir
20 February 2010

An OurKingdom conversation. [History: Stuart Weir > Andy White > Stuart Weir > Andy White > this post]

I imagine that anyone who has been following my exchanges with Andy White will have made their minds up about the wisdom, or otherwise, by campaigning for proportional representation elections to Parliament by promoting a disproportional election system that is possibly superior to first-part-the-post (FPTP) elections.  So I will sum up the debate as I see it and leave things there.

As I understand the position of the Electoral Reform Society, they regard Brown’s statutory pledge for a referendum giving people the choice between FPTP and the Alternative Vote (AV) as some kind of brutal instrument that will burst open the logjam on debate on electoral reform, an ice-breaker, the thin end of a wedge; and as AV is a preferential system – i.e., it asks people to list their preferences rather than to deliver a single vote  – it will ultimately pave the way for the Single Transferable Vote (STV), their own long-term goal, as STV is also a preferential system. 

My objections to this strategy are of two kinds – first, practical, secondly principled. Practical:  You should campaign for what you really want and put the case for PR.

  1. Arguing the merits of AV over FPTP will simply give AV more legitimacy in the public mind – especially through the emphasis on the fact that every MP elected will have more than a 50 per cent majority – thus glossing over its essentially unrepresentative nature and making  it harder to win the debate for PR;
  2. The emphasis on the single constituency will entrench still further the traditional, but damaging, attachment to the idea of the “constituency MP” and make the transition that the ERS envisages to the multi-member constituencies that STV requires to work even harder;
  3. The ERS will tarnish the very campaign for a more representative or “new” politics by its association with a blatant example of the worst “old” politics of narrow political manipulation;
  4. The ERS is tugging other democratic NGOs along in its slipstream, among them even Unlock Democracy which is committed in principle to PR, but is polling its members on the choice between FPTP and AV.

Principled: The Brown referendum is a rank abuse of power. The referendum does not give the public a full choice of alternative electoral systems and denies them the opportunity of choosing PR because Labour believes is not in the party’s interests. I believe that it is dishonourable to back this course for any organisation that deems itself democratic. 

I do not think this belief is “spiteful”, as Andy White says. I hope that he will not think me spiteful when I also point out that he adopts a contradictory position on the Jenkins Commission’s advocacy of AV Plus.  He commends the ERS’s hostility to the Jenkins proposal back in 1998 while I and others “enthused” over it. (Well, that is not quite right. I reluctantly thought it was the best offer reformers would get.)  But what does White then go on to argue ? – that AV could become “Alternative Vote Plus” with the addition of a proportional top-up list!  So has the ERS reversed its then policy?  And if so, why not campaign for AV Plus now?

Stop the secrecy: Publish the NHS COVID data deals


To: Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

We’re calling on you to immediately release details of the secret NHS data deals struck with private companies, to deliver the NHS COVID-19 datastore.

We, the public, deserve to know exactly how our personal information has been traded in this ‘unprecedented’ deal with US tech giants like Google, and firms linked to Donald Trump (Palantir) and Vote Leave (Faculty AI).

The COVID-19 datastore will hold private, personal information about every single one of us who relies on the NHS. We don’t want our personal data falling into the wrong hands.

And we don’t want private companies – many with poor reputations for protecting privacy – using it for their own commercial purposes, or to undermine the NHS.

The datastore could be an important tool in tackling the pandemic. But for it to be a success, the public has to be able to trust it.

Today, we urgently call on you to publish all the data-sharing agreements, data-impact assessments, and details of how the private companies stand to profit from their involvement.

The NHS is a precious public institution. Any involvement from private companies should be open to public scrutiny and debate. We need more transparency during this pandemic – not less.


By adding my name to this campaign, I authorise openDemocracy and Foxglove to keep me updated about their important work.

Who is bankrolling Britain's democracy? Which groups shape the stories we see in the press; which voices are silenced, and why? Sign up here to find out.

Comments

We encourage anyone to comment, please consult the oD commenting guidelines if you have any questions.
Audio available Bookmark Check Language Close Comments Download Facebook Link Email Newsletter Newsletter Play Print Share Twitter Youtube Search Instagram WhatsApp yourData