Left Foot Forward reports:
An ICM poll for the Electoral Reform Society shows that voters want a switch to the Alternative Vote (AV) system by a factor of 3:2. Thirty five per cent say they will vote ‘yes’ in the referendum, with 22% voting ‘no’ — and 35% undecided. The poll showed support across social classes and regions. The only age group with a majority against is 55-64 (31% yes, 33% no, 29% undecided). The findings are at odds with polling for YouGov which has shown the 'No' Campaign in the lead.
The poll also suggests that Labour would gain an electoral dividend from taking a clear pro-AV stance on the issue.
Labour needs to ignore its old order and embrace this issue. AV is sub-optimal. I accept that. But it’s vital all the same if gthat is all we can get.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
If proportional representation is the aim, then this must be voted for after all universal suffrage wasn’t gained in one easy step.
The problem is the bill also includes provision to reduce the number of MPs. That’s less democracy, particularly when the number of government ministers is unlikely to change. It just means the percentage of government MPs in the Commons increases.
Personally, I don’t consider AV to be a step in the right direction either. It’s more of a side-step, in my view. I will probably vote against AV in the referendum.
If we’re to change parliament by small increments, step one should be to outlaw whips. However, if I had my way, I’d prefer to start by tipping the Palace of Westminster into the Thames.
@RichardSM
Like you I’m opposed to measures to reduce the number of MPs but if the AV referendum fails then the Coalition will just put that part of the electoral reform bill through on its own – so we’d still have less MPs, but with First Past the Post. Voting “no” won’t stop the reduction in democracy.
I think AV is only a marginal improvement at best. However, a yes vote to AV might open the door to more proportional reforms in the future, and for that reason, I’ll be voting yes.
The other thing is that when you look at some of the people lined up in the “No” camp, Yes begins to look like a good idea!
A Yes vote is a must in the AV referendum although I note RichardSM’s observation that the bill includes a ticking timebomb in the Tories’ flagrant attempt at Gerrymandering constituency sizes.
The bitter Tories, whose votes pile up in a dwindling number of constituencies, have decided that the system is “biased” against them (in the same way the impartial BBC is “biased” against them – ie. it doesn’t parrot the rightwing worldview like its press lackeys) rather than reforming themselves to appeal to more voters.
Which is a funny position to take for a Party which bellows its “business-friendly” credentials. Usually, a business faced with declining market share goes back to the drawing board to make its products more appealing to a wider market. The petulant Tory reaction though is to grump that the market is rigged against them. Which is of course, yet another irony.
Don’t get confused, RichardSM. The Bill is the bill, the referendum is the referendum. The Bill is voted through, and despite a few final amendments will pass with those MP reductions. It’s unfortunate but done.
AV and the referendum is aside from this, and is far more than a side step. I’m not sure how anyone can say, with a straight face, that greater engagement with the opinion of a voter in each constituency is anything other than a step forward.
See my take on it here: http://niaccurshi.blogspot.com/2010/11/av-or-fptp-for-making-decisions.html
The only problem with voting against AV is that those against, will use it as a signal that the public doesn’t want electoral reform.
It may be better to get a momentum going than to kill it all together.
Less MP’s doesn’t necessarily mean less democracy but it may mean less chance of the government having a conscience. i.e. the occasional rebel.
p.s. I don’t disagree with your sentiments I’m just putting forward some thoughts, that sound reasonable and would be used if it doesn’t go ahead.
@Howard
Agreed
My logic too
Unless the public and the media are prepared to accept that manifesto promises might have to be bargained away in exchange for concessions elsewhere when in coalition government, I don’t see that AV would be any benefit at all for this country.
That said, I will vote for it.
In the Commons debate on 12 October 2010*, Caroline Lucas put it well:
“I welcome the fact that the Committee is at long last debating the possibility of a referendum on electoral reform, but it is crucial that the public choose the voting system, not the politicians.”
“We do not often have referendums in this country, and now that we are planning to have one, the least that we can do is give people a real choice on their ballot papers.”
“It is hugely disappointing that AV is the only alternative to first past the post in the Bill. As a result, the Bill fails to live up to the promise of genuine reform and of re-engaging people with the political process.”
She’s right. We don’t have referendums very often. In fact, we’ve only ever had one UK referendum. There is a menu of choices on voting systems, but the choices being offered to the public is just two, and one of those we already have.
It’s like being asked to choose between porridge or gruel for breakfast, when you know there’s preserves, muesli, bacon, eggs, kippers, ham and cheese.
*Source: Hansard
@Lee Griffin
I’m not confused.
RichardSM
We’ve had 9 referendums. But yes, your point is right, but the matter is settled now and this is what we have to work with. FPTP or AV…it’s got to be AV out of those two.