In parliament Labour has supported the referendum while opposing vigorously the ‘gerrymandering’ clauses of the bill which reduces the number of constituencies and abolishes local public inquiries on boundary changes. We also opposed the government’s proposed date for the referendum.
Some will see this referendum as an opportunity to inflict a stinging defeat on Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems. The temptation is, of course, understandable but I hope Labour people will resist it. The case for AV is very powerful and should be seen as part of a broader campaign to improve our democracy.
AV is a modest but significant change in the way that we elect our MPs. It will reduce massively the scope for tactical voting. In my former constituency in Enfield I relied on Liberal Democrat tactical votes in 1997 and 2001. In many seats Labour supporters vote tactically for the Liberal Democrats in order to stop the Tories. Under AV, Labour voters in Southport can give Labour their first preference without any fear of letting the Tories in (and the same goes for Liberal Democrat voters in Enfield Southgate).
AV will encourage the main parties, their MPs and candidates to reach out to a broad section of the electorate. This is good for Labour. Recent history shows that when we appeal both to our core supporters and to the wider electorate we win. I am confident that if we get our policies right we can win a larger share of first preferences but also a large number of other parties’ second preferences too.
AV will change the way that we campaign. We will have to develop more sophisticated ways of building relationships with voters – including with those electors who won’t put us first but might give us their second preference. MPs and parties in marginal seats already have experience of this but AV will make this the norm, not the exception.
AV is not proportional representation. I hope we will maintain our support for PR for an elected second chamber. AV is no more likely to produce coalitions than first past the post. AV does give more power and choice to the voter and ensures that all MPs enjoy the support of a majority of those voting in their local constituencies. It is not a panacea for all the ills of our democracy but could contribute to a renewal of public faith in politics.
The fiercest opponents of AV are the right of the Tory party – just read the recent parliamentary debates on the subject. Their fear is that AV might kill forever the prospect of a full-blooded Thatcherite majority in the House of Commons. They may well be right!
There have always been differences in the Labour party on electoral reform. Let’s air these differences in an open and comradely way. I hope Labour supporters and the wider public will be persuaded that AV is a positive, progressive and sensible improvement and therefore vote Yes.
“The fiercest opponents of AV are the right of the Tory party” Complete and utter nonsense (and that the polite version of what I’d like to put!) Tactical voting is a get out excuse for the failure to get commitment to and in all constituencies!
For many like me, tactical voting has been the only way to keep out the Tories. I would far prefer to award my vote to the most deserving (non-tory) candidate and AV gives me a chance to do just that with a back-up preference. It’s all very well saying “my party right or wrong” but when you are in a constituency where ONLY either Labour or Lib Dems have a chance of keeping out the right then currently your conscience willl not LET you vote for your preferred choice! I think that PR is a step too far and will give credence to fringe elements like the BNP. But AV is the right way to go. To ignore it is to give a gift to the Tories!
oh god already it’s like listening to the offside rule or when we changed to new money,I do get it… 1. Who you would like 2. If you can’t have them who next would you like….and so on ending, up with the nazi’s obviously ? What do people in general think ,have polls been taken ?
If AV is passed I shall continue to vote only for the person I want to be elected. If people want the opportunity to vote for an Executive (government) as well as parliament then they should say so. Tacticial voting is dead now the Lib Dems have fallen apart Laws /Clegg v the Hugnians
‘AV is no more likely to produce coalitions than first past the post.’ Of course it is – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8644480.stm
I was unsure about the advantages of AV but since reading Stephen Twigg’s article I have been persuaded that changing to AV would be deliterious not only to Labour but also democracy in the country. If you want weak coalition government (as at present) then AV is for you. All forms of voting other than ‘first past the post’ benefits the interests of minor parties like the LibDems/FibDems who, not expecting power, can glibly ‘promise the earth’ in their manifestos.
Modest but not significant change I would say. I’m with Peter Copping, no way will I vote any other way but Labour. There is no Alternative Vote as far as I’m concerned and voting for other candidates as a 2nd, 3rd or whatever choice is not on if I find that I have contributed to the election of a Party I do not like. Why is everybody so surprised that the Lib Dems are so mendacious? Have they never been involved in a campaign where one, or a number, of the candidates is/are Lib Dems? Here they put out a leaflet in April stating that Labour would do away with the Freedom Pass!
“The commitment was part of a wider programme of reform to renew public faith in politics”. No it wasn’t! It was a panic reaction by the Gordon Brown clan to the likelihood of having to do a deal with the Libs post the GE. Foisting a voting system that is so unsuitable for electing a parliament that only Australia and a couple of its even tinier neighbours use is hardly likely to help renew public faith in politics. Especially not as it’s being sold as a proportional system. Were the Yes camp to win, the electorate would soon discover it had been duped and would become even more disillusioned with politics and politicians.
Hi Steven, I was attending the unlock democracy campaign group where you and many others spoke about supporting AV recently. You allude that under AV there would be no more Conservative government majorities (no more Thatcherism) But have you considered the unholy gains that the formation of a Coalition obtains from the AV system? AV’s disproportional nature would then work very strongly against Labour. Lets take another look at your old seat of Enfield if a Lib/Con coalition forms similar to Australia; In 1997 Under a Coalition : Portillo would have won under AV with over 50% of the vote and you would not have made a breakthrough. In 2001 You would have won, as you did with > 50% of the vote. In 2005 You would still have lost, but with a greatly increased swing to the coalition. Overall – if you simply get a spreadsheet and compute the effect of a combined libdem/conservative/ukip ‘coalition’ win vote (>50%) for the 2010 GE under AV, Labour would be reduced sharply – losing 93 seats. Thats likely just for starters. Didn’t you also have a 7% bias in the national vote under FPTP then as well? I know many Labour members think that AV will kill off the Conservative party (i.e. killing off the extremes of Thatcherism) but the much more likely result is that it would kill off the Labour party, not completely – as an opposition, but almost certainly from government. If the Party split into ‘Old Labour’ vs ‘New Labour ‘ over very strong principled differences – Immigration, Europe and Social policy in opposition, a rerun of the Australian situation with the DLP and Labor could easily occur under AV. There have been far fewer occasions when Labour have formed a government in Australia under AV – most of the time its the Liberal coalition in power. I do not believe AV will lead to PR thats certainly confirmed by LibDem MP’s who have said people should only vote for AV and PR is not the referedum.