Labour MP Margaret Beckett is against AV voting, while Tory John Strafford supports it ? both disagree with their party leaders. And soon the British people will decide
Should Britain end first-past-the-post voting at general elections in favour of the alternative vote, in which electors rank candidates in order of preference? This week the Lords ended their blockage of the bill, so a referendum will put the question to the electorate on 5 May. Labour leader Ed Miliband has spelled out why he backs the change ? and prime minister David Cameron why he opposes it. But not everyone in the party camps are following their leaders ? Labour MP Margaret Beckett is opposed to AV, while John Strafford, a former member of the Conservative party's national executive, chairs the Tory campaign in favour of it. Joanna Moorhead listened in to their conversation ? and started by asking each to explain why their own leader is wrong, and the other's right.
Margaret Beckett: It's not a matter of the points that Cameron is making. What I don't accept is the fundamental premise that there's something unfair and wrong about our present system. Of the alternatives, there are few people who think AV is a good idea. Most people who are in favour of it have landed on it as a kind of compromise. I don't know whether you are someone who really believes in AV, John ...
John Strafford: I am a believer in AV.
I think most Conservatives today are having a bout of nostalgia. Research shows that the younger you are, the more you're in favour of AV. The older you are, the more likely you are to support first-past-the-post. The average Tory party member is 68, so they tend to support FPTP. But what that age group really wants is to go back to the old two-party politics, where we all knew where we were. But things have changed: and FPTP, which worked well in two-party politics, no longer works today.
MB: There's no such thing as a "fair" electoral system. All electoral systems are fair in some ways, and unfair in others. I concede that the system we have now tends to produce a majority even when the numbers are not overwhelming. But my fear is that changing our system would give disproportionate power to minorities, sometimes small minorities. And the trouble is that once you've made the change, you can never go back, because if you're a tiny party that has massively disproportionate power, you're not going to give it up.
JS: There is a balance, I accept that, between the systems. But it doesn't seem right to say that we've got a representative parliament when an MP can win with 35% of the vote, while 65% voted against them. In 2005, the Labour Party got 35% of the votes, and had a 66-seat majority. In 2010 the Tories got 36% of the votes and didn't get any majority. And twice since the war, the party that's got the most votes in the election didn't go on to form the government ?
MB: I'm not quarrelling with that, but I'm just not very interested. And I don't think the British people are. The outcome is what matters. The British people know how our system works, and they know how to use it. When they want change, they make change.
JS: But Margaret, it's just not so. You might as well toss a coin as to who forms a government. There's no correlation whatsoever between the amount of votes that a party gets and the amount of seats it gets in parliament.
MB: When you travel around the world, people ask you: why is politics in Britain so stable? I think one reason you get explosions in some countries that don't have our system is because people don't find it as easy to make political change via the ballot box. And I fear that if you sell the British people a pup, as I believe this is, and you say change the system and you'll have real power, and then they find that it's the opposite, that it's harder to change things ... then you could get an explosion here.
JS: What's really going to change with AV is the way the parties go into elections, and their manifestos. At the last election, all three main parties were only interested in the 10% of seats that were marginal, and the 10% within those areas who were floating voters. So they were only interested in 1% of the population ? because they were the people who were going to determine the result. That meant major issues were not debated, such as a referendum on Europe, bringing troops home from Afghanistan, subsidies on climate change ?
MB: I don't agree with that ?
JS: ? because they were concentrating on that 1%. But it will all be different under AV, because two thirds of seats will become marginal.
MB: That's nonsense! How does AV make two thirds of seats marginal?
JS: Because two thirds of the seats haven't got an MP who has more than 50% of the vote.
MB: This is one of the great myths. AV doesn't automatically give you a system where every MP gets more than 50%.
JS: This is the no campaign trying to confuse the electorate ?
MB: I'm just trying to convey facts! Many MPs are already elected by more than 50%.
Joanna Moorhead: One thing you'd probably both agree on is that it would be good to get more people in general, and maybe young people in particular, interested in politics. Would AV do that?
MB: Well, when they introduced this system in Australia, turnout fell so badly at subsequent elections that they brought in compulsory voting.
JS: It wasn't in the first election after they introduced AV, it was only in the following one that turnout dropped.
MB: Yes, they tried it ... then all stayed at home. The danger is that people here would become even more disenchanted with politics, further down the line.
JS: But huge numbers of people today feel their vote doesn't count. With AV they will have a vote, and it will count.
MB: I think that's nonsense. Another thing about AV is that it will take a lot longer to work out who's won an election. It's going to be much more complicated, and it will cost a fortune.
JS: It's not going to cost a fortune!
MB: The government's figure is �80-90m and that's just for the referendum. Then there's the counting machines, the extra polling stations ?
JS: You don't have to have counting machines! Obviously there is a cost in holding a referendum, but the extra costs of voting using AV aren't that great. Australia has never used counting machines. Historically, I think this is an important moment: it's the first time the British people have ever been asked to vote on an electoral system.
MB: And if they vote yes, it will be the last. Because it will be irrevocable ? they won't be able to change it.
JS: It will be exciting. It'll open up democracy. There are things that are wrong with our democracy, and this is a small step to change them. Let the people decide!
Global climate talks Marcus Bent Weekend breaks Newspapers Bank of England Ann Widdecombe
No comments:
Post a Comment