Let's play by Aussie Rules: Labour calls for AV

oratorhunt Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:38:40 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Peter Hain will lead the call for Britain to switch to the Austrialian-style system of AV for the primary chamber - combined with a reformed upper chamber to be elected by PR - in an address to the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform later today..



Peter will be speaking at ‘Let’s Play by Aussie Rules: Electoral Reform without dividing the Labour Party’ Tuesday 15 July, 6.30 - 7.30 pm in Committee Room 6, House of Commons Ken Ritchie, Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society said: “Our current elections have contributed to a crisis of confidence in Westminster. Election turnout is low and failing. Barely a third of MPs can claim majority support of their constituents. Governments continue to form mammoth majorities on a minority of the vote. “‘X’ voting is a crude system, a leftover of an illiterate, ill-informed age. With a preferential system we can finally offer some much needed choice to an increasingly discerning electorate. “But make no mistake – AV is not PR. It shares many of the problems inherent in all majoritarian systems – simply parliaments that don’t reflect how the public actually voted. It is not a final destination at any stretch, but would go some way to shattering the idea First-Past-the-Post is an immovable object at Westminster. “This could be a long-overdue spring clean at Westminster. But only Proportional Representation can deliver a fundamental overhaul of our democracy. We need preference voting hand in hand with multi-member constituencies. We need to banish all the false certainties of our winner-takes-all elections to history. “AV alone cannot deliver on that promise. It is however a definite first-step along that road”.

tags: , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Let's play by Aussie Rules: Labour calls for AV | 23 comments (23 topical)

Yes, Let's play by Aussie Rules! (#1)

by old worker on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:14:52 PM GMT


If we did, we might even have a Labour Government here in 2010.

This wonm't happen any other way after Brown.

The idea deserves some thought.


The Libs will bless you... (#2)

by Floating voter on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:05:25 PM GMT

It will look like a "power grab". One last desperate attempt to hang on by the fingernails.

Don't expect it to be well-received outside Labour cirlces. Except for teh Libs of course - it's their passport to power.


Re: Let's play by Aussie Rules: (#3)

by oratorhunt on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:28:29 PM GMT

Recent modelling suggests second preferences would split more or less evenly between Labour and Tories at the moment.  Short-term party advantage is not the reason to promote it.  It would be welcome insofar as it heralds a recognition that the present electoral system is not set in stone and is no longer fit for purpose.  No democrat can be complacent about the long-term decline in levels of participation and engagement.  We should calim the moral high-ground on this.


Let's play by Aussie Rules: Labour calls for AV (#4)

by Googler on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:04:24 PM GMT

I agree, it will look a bit like a power grab. The obvious refrain would be 'how come you are reforming it now, when you look like losing, hmmm?'

My proposal for the Lords, at least, would be to make it PR based entirely on the popular vote from the general election. It would give incentive for political parties to get out the vote and try to attain as high a precentage share as possible and it would maintain the supremacy of the Commons (a big concern of mine with an elected upper house) as the Lords could only be composed after the Commons has been. One thing I would be sorry to see go would be the cross-benchers though. Think there should be an effort to maintain this aspect of the Lords.

G 


Re: Let's play by Aussie Rules (#5)

by AngryVoter on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:48:38 PM GMT

As much as it'd probably be a good idea, it won't hold well with the electorate who will go Daily Mail on folks. People are already wearing down from the Labour Government at present and want a change of some form, changing the rules to favour Labour over all other parties would be disasterous and could tip the balance for some brits who are feeling distressed by the present situation.

Plus, now when Labour is at it's lowest ever poll ratings under the old system, when it looks like it's an outgoing government to suddenly pull off a set of reforms that could see it stay when the public seems to want it to go?

I can really see that being popular. Yeah.

The reason why we prefer the FPTP system here is because it ensures strong government and not petty bickering between the "Big Two" of the Tories and Labour who will then try to coax the Lib Dems into coalition governments. You only have to look at Europe or Pakistan, where coalitions seem to form and collapse every 2 minutes to see what an awful system PR actually is.


Re: Labour calls for AV (#6)

by jkitleft on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:20:56 PM GMT

There is a myth that PR leads to weak government. What about Spain, Scotland and Australia? No one is talking about pure PR that is undertaken in Israel.

I think we should introduce AV+. Jenkins said it would be the best way of maintaining proportionality, while also keeping strong government.

I don't think it would be a desperate attempt to keep Labour in power. As long as it was mandated that the largest party filled the role of PM. It's outrageous that Labour would still be leading the Tories, if they were leading us by approximately the same lead we had over them at the last election.

If the Lib Dems, and others polled the same percentage, then the Tories would have to be leading by around 5.25% for them to develop a lead over Labour in terms of seats. If the same conditions are taken into account, then the Tories would have to lead by 10.4% to get a majority.



Re: Let's play by Aussie..... (#7)

by For the Union on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:57:46 PM GMT

FPTP has served us well - if its not broke, dont fix it.

If the lib dems want to be taken seriously - come up with some serious policies, otherwise leave it to the big two - winner take all.

 

 


Re: Let's play by Aussie..... (#8)

by jkitleft on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:29:15 PM GMT

It is broke though.

I already pointed out the percentages necessary for the Tories to beat us, and it shows the system is broke.


[ Parent ]

Re: Let's play by Aussie..... (#11)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:43:39 AM GMT

Exactly - most people in this country think the current system is broke! That's why we need a change.


[ Parent ]

Re: Let's play by Aussie Rules: (#9)

by AdamLewis on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:09:01 PM GMT

We do need some reform, the current system is archaic. Only a country as natrually conservative as Britain could hold onto such a voting system for such a long time!

I accept that it might be seen as a power grab - but at the same time I'm sure people would prefer it if we decide what to do based on what we believe is right, as opposed to what might be popular/unpopular with the press and electorate. In any case we're surely at our lowest ebb now - we might as well drive through reforms we think are just whilst we still can!

Unsure about multi member constituencies though...  I do have some sympathy with the FPTP people who argue in favour of the MP / Constituency link. An AV system would help us do this.

If anything, it will remind us that, at bottom, we are still a radical Party.


Re: Labour calls for AV (#10)

by sunderkatwala on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:29:56 AM GMT

I agree. FPTP is clearly broken in its own terms: it is a majoritarian system, and the argument for it is that it allows voters a clear choice of governments by giving a majority to the party with most votes. But the electoral geography doesn't work like that anymore, so that isn't likely to happen without a great deal of luck unless Labour is ahead.

The Hain proposal is the only workable compromise for electoral reform in the next 5-10 years. I wrote a Fabian Review essay explaining the problem of the current system and advocating this in Autumn 2007.

(But the link generator isn't working, so here is the URL)
http://fabians.org.uk/publications/extracts/call-for-lab-libdem-deal-on-alternative-vote

AV is more a modification of the current system than it is a PR system. There is very little reason for anybody who has traditionally supported the current system to oppose it. (In a previous thread, the argument was made that AV will almost always lead to coalition governments and the LibDems having the balance of power: that is simply wrong. It would mostly lead to single-party majority governments. Incidentally, so would AV+ in most post-war general elections, though it is more proportional than AV. Jenkins analysis is that only 1992 would have been a hung parliament of post-1979 elections under AV+)

At the same time, it is considerably better than FPTP in several ways in terms of ending tactical voting, probably reducing geographical polarisation (eg south-west Labour supporters can vote for us, and still vote a LibDem second preference; the reverse for Tories in Labour heartland seats) and strengthening the constituency link by having each MP seek 50% in their constituency.
More votes count, though it is not proportional. Having PR for an elected second chamber offers a compromise reform package which could gain broad support.

I doubt there is a short-term benefit to Labour in this . However, the argument that it is a short-term measure to keep the Tories out (while ill-informed, as the leading academics, etc could demonstrate) would be made. It might be that the chance was missed, eg in 2007, to reform from a position of strength.
 
In the longer-term, it encourages more pluralist campaigning (eg, as between Ken and the Greens in London). But LibDem voters currently would split equally, or perhaps for the Tories. The impact of AV on the composition of a Parliament may be fairly limited, but the result would have greater legitimacy.


Re: Labour calls for AV (#12)

by jkitleft on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:12:22 PM GMT

I think it is probably the only system that will maintain one type of MP, while being fairer.

Anyway, we all know from the experience of devolution, and the fact that the Lib Dems has a conservative 'Orange Book' wing, that there are right wing supporters of the Lib Dems. A sort of libertarian wing.

How could we syphon off the left wing of the Lib Dems?


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour calls for AV (#13)

by oratorhunt on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:49:55 PM GMT

STV retains one kind of MP, and - unlike AV - gives broadly proportional results.  The main barrier to this is the bogus argument about that holy of holies "the constituency link".  Actually, the MPs love it because it competely excludes the idea that they might be in competition with each other.  Funny that they tell all other public servants that their comfortable positions as monopoly services providers have to be broken up, so consumers can "shop-around" and get better value for theri money.  But MPs' monopolies are the "bedrock of British Democracy" - despite never having an exclusively single member election for the Commons before 1948! 

Why don't we modernise this set of outdated-practices and drag the MPs into the 21st century with the rest of us?!?!


[ Parent ]

Re: Let's play by Aussie Rules: (#14)

by Anonymous X on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:31:20 PM GMT

Shame some of the old fallacies are still wheeled out and believed; the one about any non-FPTP leading to "unstable" government is not true in the vast majority of cases across European nations. Additionally, any electoral reform need not benefit the LibDems, as new parties could enter the field of play, who may end up being better allies for Labour if a coalition government is required.


Re: Let's play by Aussie Rules: (#15)

by jkitleft on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:36:34 PM GMT

I think one way to limit the Lib Dems influence, would be to guarantee in law that the party with the most seats fills the role of PM. That way, the Lib Dems can only promise to have a no confidence vote in the government, if they want to resort to blackmail. But the memory would be fresh in the electorate's minds if they succeeded, so it might not play well for them.


[ Parent ]

Labour calls for AV (#16)

by Will Roberts on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:03:54 PM GMT

We need people to re-engage with Politics, and a big problem at the moment is that in many constituencies people feel their vote counts for nothing - so they simply abstain.

AV would reduce the influence of a handful of "key marginals" on political debate by opening up more constituencies to a genuine contest. As a result, public policy would more accurately reflect the needs of the whole nation.

AV would also reduce the need for tactical voting as people could express their genuine preferences. In the South West there is healthy support for Labour but we struggle to even win council elections because so many of our supporters cast an automatic "tactical" vote for the Lib Dems.

AV is a welcome modernisation of FPTP which reflects the reality of 3-4 party politics. And it avoids the disastrous implications of PR systems which lead to perpetual hung parliaments and multi-member constituencies where MP's are completely out of touch with their constituents because they cannot develop any meaningful relationship with half-a-million plus people.

Introducing AV now would of course be misinterpreted as an electoral ploy - which is why we should announce it as a manifesto commitment for the next parliament.


Re: Labour calls for AV (#17)

by oratorhunt on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:43:34 PM GMT

"Disastrous implications" of PR??  It's funny that virtually the rest of Europe - bar France (who don't use a straight FPTP contest themselves) find it works rather well!  What is so bad about hung parliaments?  Voters in Scotland might well look at the free care for the elderly and no tuition fees and think that a coalition government served them rather well.  Multi-member seats needn't lead to a breakdown of the link to voters - it can happen under a closed list (like the Euros), but under STV the reverse happens.  In fact, some Irish TDs complain that they have to work so hard for their constituents they don't have quite enough time to scrutinise legislation!!!

Incidentally, AV wouldn't get rid of the safe seat/marginal divide - there would still be many instances where voting is a waste of time.  And as the manifesto, just one flaw in that strategy - we're likely to be out of office the other side of the next GE.  Can we risk doing nothing whatsover on the voting system whilst the system is so obviously broken.  The Tories sure as hell won't be changing it in a hurry. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour calls for AV (#18)

by Will Roberts on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:43:42 PM GMT

I can't agree with you about most of those comparisons. Electoral systems need to interlink with the rest of the constitutional set-up, and in Britain our sysem of government is built around majority government. #10 has already dealt with many of your other claims about PR.

Are you seriously suggesting that we introduce a completely new electoral system months before an election just because you think we won't win? And you call that democratic?!


Why the assumption that we won't win? Certainly we need to make changes in order to win back public support, but carefully considered progressive reforms will be part of this. But I can't see the public rewarding a cynical re-writing of the rules just months before polling day.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour calls for AV (#19)

by oratorhunt on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:10:19 PM GMT

Where does anything in Sunder's post refute the case for PR?  He only says that pragmatically AV is worth having rather than FPTP (I agree) and that it is the only realistic game in town (I agree there too in the short term). 

I don't think we should introduce AV because we would otherwise lose.  I think we are just as likely to lose under AV.  I know it runs against the grain of much current policy making, but I think we should do it, because extending voter choice is the right thing to do in principle.  I don't think we can win the election by ducking big questions and contracting out all future measures to the manifesto.  After all, we had a manifesto promise in 97 to hold a refernendum on PR.  We're still waiting.  People are cynical - not with cause - about whether we will deliver on our promises.  Better to deliver and fight on the basis of what we've done than pussyfoot around.


[ Parent ]

Re: Let's play by Aussie Rules (#20)

by choffi on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:33:57 PM GMT

I attended this meeting in the HOP with Peter Hain on Tuesday and it was very interesting indeed. I am a long term supporter of STV with MM constituencies as the best and fairest system for a whole number of reasons (see here for some of what I am talking about: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=103) however I am starting to believe for pragmatic reasons that Peter Hain and Sunder and others analysis that it is politically impossible to drive through any change except AV in the forseeable future is unanswerable.

There was also a presentation given by Paul Smith from the Australian Labor Party which was even more persuasive still. He gave us a potted history lesson in the evolution of the Austalian electoral system during the 20th century and he was advocating not just AV but also compulsory voting, weekend voting, mobile polling stations (which actually go out and find voters!), ability to vote up to 2 weeks in advance and other measures all of which are used in Australia.

It is not often that I go into a meeting with one view and come out with my mind changed but in this case I did. I was ready to argue for STV but I can certainly see the pragmatic arguments for electoral reform activists to unite behind Peter Hain in his campaign to get AV introduced. He is ambitiously planning to table an amendment to an existing bill and is aiming to get something done before the next general election.

I am not convinced this is achievable but he should certainly give it a shot. After all, it is most likely that Labour will be out of power after 2010 possibly for many years and you can bet your life the Tories will never implement anything like this (unless forced to through a hung parliament).

 


Re: Let's play by Aussie Rules (#21)

by HHemmelig on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:54:04 PM GMT

Be careful what you wish for guys.

In the last few elections, AV would have worked in favour of Labour because when forced to choose between Labour and Tory as a second preference, Lib Dem voters overwhelmingly backed Labour.

However, the latest polls show that this has changed around and a substantial majority of Lib Dems now prefer Cameron over Brown as a second preference (see link below)

http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/07/18/is-this-the-backcloth-to-cleggs-tax-cuttin g-approach/

This would result in a worse result for Labour under AV compared with FPTP.

I cannot help thinking that by trying to bring this in at the eleventh hour of this long period of Labour government at the nadir of its popularity, it would look like a cynical manipulation of the election rules to save Gordon Brown's skin.  The voters would punish Labour under the new system.

The comment above that "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is spot on.


[ Parent ]

Re: Let's play by Aussie Rules (#22)

by oratorhunt on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:16:48 AM GMT

The voters will punish Labour under any system at the next election.  That is because we're not popular!
Maybe if we started putting the good of democracy before short-term party advantage there might - just might - be a way of trying to turn this around.

The system is broken, and needs fixing.  That's why voter turnout is in long-term decline.  It's why membership of political parties is at an all time low.  It's why people think all politicians are the same, that voting doesn't make a difference. 

Plus, FPTP might well be about to give us 2 or 3 terms of Tory government on a minoirity share of the vote.  How stupid would we be to have allowed that to happen?


[ Parent ]

Re: Let's play by Aussie Rules (#23)

by jkitleft on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 11:40:48 AM GMT

I think it actually strengthens the case for AV, if we can say to the public, that the move wouldn't benefit us, it's just what is right.


[ Parent ]

Let's play by Aussie Rules: Labour calls for AV | 23 comments (23 topical)