Bollitics: The AV Referendum

[Jon]

I wonder what the turnout at the referendum will be?

I started this thread because the vote is coming up soon and nobody I spoke to (workmates, frends, family) had any understanding of what it's all about. And they were ALL intelligent, well-educated people.

The vote's not until May though is it Mike?

I guess "we" don't really want campaigning on this to run for 6 weeks or so .... that'd be as long as a GE campaign.

It's not a hugely complicated issue, so I'd guess 2 or 3 weeks before will see the real action take place ...

and as if by magic ....

Ed Miller Band

Ed Miliband launches cross-party alternative vote pushClick to play

Ed Miliband: "Britain deserves an electoral system that fairly reflects voters' views"

Continue reading the main story

Related Stories

AV referendum: Where parties stand

Referendum views: No campaign

Referendum views: Yes campaign

Labour leader Ed Miliband has joined top Liberal Democrats including ex-leader Charles Kennedy to call for a change to the system for electing MPs.

Green Party leader Caroline Lucas and top Lib Dems Baroness Williams and Tim Farron also joined Mr Miliband to call for a Yes vote in 5 May's referendum.

But Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg was not invited - after Mr Miliband refused to share a platform with him.

It came as the No campaign urged voters not to ditch "one person one vote".

Mr Miliband has urged Nick Clegg, who also supports a change to the alternative vote system, to "lie low" during the Yes campaign, given public anger with Mr Clegg over student tuition fees and public sector cuts.

But he refused to comment further on the deputy prime minister's enforced absence from the Yes campaign event.

Continue reading the main story

THE REFERENDUM CHOICE

At the moment MPs are elected by the first-past-the-post system, where the candidate getting the most votes in a constituency is elected.

On 5 May all registered UK voters will be able to vote Yes or No on whether to change the way MPs are elected to the alternative vote system.

Under the alternative vote system, voters rank candidates in their constituency in order of preference.

Anyone getting more than 50% of first-preference votes is elected.

If no-one gets 50% of votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their backers' second choices allocated to those remaining.

This process continues until one candidate has at least 50% of all votes in that round.

Q&A: alternative vote referendum

AV poll: Where parties stand

"I have said what I have said about Nick Clegg... This referendum mustn't be about political parties, it is not about a referendum about Nick Clegg or a referendum on David Cameron, it is about whether you want a new voting system."

Mr Kennedy refused to comment on Mr Clegg's absence, but Lib Dem president Tim Farron said: "The Labour Party will want to make points about Nick and that is fair game."

But he added: "It would be wrong to get into silly rows about who should or should not be on the platform. I am not going to get into that."

Labour MPs are split on whether the current first-past-the-post voting system should be scrapped, with senior figures such as former cabinet members Margaret Beckett and John Prescott campaigning for a No vote.

But Mr Miliband urged all those on the centre-left to unite behind the push for the alternative vote.

"The tragedy for progressive politics historically has been that division on the centre and left has handed a united right victory after victory," he said.

"For most of the last 80 years, there has been one Conservative Party - but several competing for progressive votes. The result, over the years, speak for themselves.

"No wonder the Tories back the current system. They know Britain is not a fundamentally Conservative country. But with first-past-the-post, they too often govern when progressive forces are divided... Britain deserves an electoral system that fairly reflects voters' views."

'Gang of nine'

Mr Miliband was joined by shadow cabinet colleagues Tessa Jowell and John Denham, who both made speeches urging a Yes vote, with Mr Denham claiming AV was an "anti-extremist system which... enables the progressive majority to come through".

Mr Miliband and the others laughed off suggestions from journalists that the cross-party campaign was the start of a new coalition or, as Mr Miliband jokingly dubbed it the "gang of nine" - a reference to the founding of the SDP, when Baroness Williams was a member of a "gang of four" breakaway Labour politicians.

Caroline Lucas, in her speech, said "two party politics is dead, it's finished", adding that "people vote differently now and we therefore need a voting system to reflect that".

Continue reading the main story

Analysis

Nick Robinson

BBC Political Editor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are we seeing our political future?

There they sat. Altogether. Side by side. Supporters of the government and its bitter opponents. Political enemies united by a common goal which excites few - the campaign to change Britain's voting system - but which has the potential to change much.

This morning Labour's leader took to the stage with the man some dream of as the Liberal Democrats next leader, the party's President Tim Farron. Alongside them the former leader whose distaste for his party's coalition with the Conservatives is well known - Charles Kennedy. Absent was the current leader, Nick Clegg, who couldn't be there for personal reasons - he's in Mexico, although more pertinently Ed Miliband didn't want to be seen anywhere near him.

There too today a woman who could tell them all about the power of referendum campaigns to re-shape politics - Shirley Williams. The last UK-wide referendum - held in 1975 on membership of what was then called the Common Market - was the first step toward the splitting of the Labour Party, the creation of the SDP and, eventually, the emergence of the Liberal Democrats.

Read Nick's full view of the event

-------

She acknowledged that she would have preferred a "properly proportional electoral system" but AV was "a significant improvement on first-past-the-post" and a "no vote would set back the debate for electoral reform for at least a generation".

Mr Kennedy, in his speech, told people who wanted to wait for a more proportional system "you can't afford that luxury".

"This is the proposition on the table. This represents the force of political reform and this is the chance that has got to be seized."

But former Home Secretary Lord Reid told BBC News AV was a "threat to the very basis on which we have always held our democratic system".

The Labour peer said AV "completely undermines and corrupts" the principle of "one person one vote", claiming it would allow voters who support "minority parties" such as the BNP to have more of a say in election results than the supporters of mainstream parties.

Asked if he would join Conservative leader David Cameron on a No to AV platform, he added: "This issue is much bigger than any political party... I will share a platform with anyone who stands for safeguarding the right of the people of this country to have equal votes."

And, in a letter to the Times on Tuesday, four former foreign secretaries claimed the current system was an example to other democracies.

"Those of us who have represented Britain internationally know one of the many reasons why we have always punched above our weight in the world is our simple and straightforward voting system, a system which everyone can understand," the signatories - including Labour's Margaret Beckett and Tories Malcolm Rifkind, Lord Hurd, Lord Howe and current foreign secretary William Hague - argue.

Under the current Westminster electoral system, voters place a cross next to their preferred candidate. Under the alternative vote they would rank candidates in order of preference.

If no candidate wins more than 50% of the vote the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their backers' second choices allocated to those remaining, with process continuing until one candidate has more than half the votes in that round.

seeing the quotes and characters on either side of the divide on this, it just totally reinforces my "Oui on AV".

[Rodders]

yup.

If it fails, that's me done with voting ever again anyway. Until there's signficant change it's a **** load of tripe anyway, but step by step would provide hope.

I completely expect it to fail, mind.

[tonyh29]

If it fails, that's me done with voting ever again anyway.

that's the spirit :winkold:

[mjmooney]

I think it will fail miserably. The "anti"s poster campaign - "He needs body armour, not AV, we can't afford it", etc. - is brilliant. Spurious, but brilliant.

[Jon]

Really. Not seen that Ad. Absolutely woeful ad if it's suggesting that a yes vote on AV somehow takes money away from the armed forces, but just about the level i'd expect from those w*nkers.

ps. What is the voting system for the vote on the voting system? FPTP?

[TheDon]

ps. What is the voting system for the vote on the voting system? FPTP?

I don't think you can have anything but FPTP on a yes/no vote "I'll choose yes, but if it's not yes, I'll go with no".

[mjmooney]

Really. Not seen that Ad. Absolutely woeful ad if it's suggesting that a yes vote on AV somehow takes money away from the armed forces, but just about the level i'd expect from those w*nkers.

And slightly more interestingly (considering it comes from the Tories):

[Jon]

ps. What is the voting system for the vote on the voting system? FPTP?

I don't think you can have anything but FPTP on a yes/no vote "I'll choose yes, but if it's not yes, I'll go with no".

I was being a bit facetious.

But I was also asking if there was any kind of qualification for a yes outcome. If more people vote yes than no, does that thus mean that AV will be passed through parliament unopposed?

What if less than 50% of the population have voted yes? As would seem likely, as I'd guess it'll be a close vote, and many won't bother to at all.

[Rodders]

what a retarded pathetic "campaign". The idea that changing something means taking money away from other services is the brainchild of a massive massive ****.

[Jon]

Really. Not seen that Ad. Absolutely woeful ad if it's suggesting that a yes vote on AV somehow takes money away from the armed forces, but just about the level i'd expect from those w*nkers.

And slightly more interestingly (considering it comes from the Tories):

I actually think these posters from the Tories are quite sick. They're not even above having a go at "one of their own" it seems.

Quite funny one this. The Oui campaign don't want Clegg aboard, even though he wants to be. The Non campaign, populated largely by the party to which he now "belongs", however seem to think he's a great weapon to use against voting yes, even though the only way that shite-house party has got into power is because of him getting into bed with them in the first place.

If it wasn't tragic it'd be funny.

ps. Is there a single tory (Mp, party member or even voter) who will be interested in voting yes? I have my doubts ....

[NowDoINotLikeThat]

Was initially against the idea tbh. As does seem bit of a shit compromise but those "no" campaign adverts i making me re-evaluate my position . They are very cynical and tbh just seem a joke.

First past the post is crap and political reform is definately needed no argument

but have to say AV seems crap halfway house at well.

I honestly dnno.

[Jon]

Those posters are aimed at the "uneducated masses", of which there are unfortunately quite a few. They'll work for them too.

It's emotive misinformative bullshit.

A sad indictment on those responsible for them.

[LondonLax]

But it works.

John Howard and his 'Liberal Party' (a misnomer if ever there was one) stayed in power for 16 years in Australia with similar tactics.

[mjmooney]

Like I said, spurious but brilliant.

They've got it in the bag.

[Jon]

Like I said, spurious but brilliant.

They've got it in the bag.

they'll probably work Mike Yes.

Spurious, Yes. Spurious at best actually. Sickening also springsto mind. Distasteful, yes.

Brilliant? Surely not. It doesn't take a mastermind or a genius to come up with something like that.

It's a base level campaign aimed at angering and scaring the less well informed and emotive people, and it'll get them, too.

But it's not the work of some mastermind advertising genius.

In many respects it's the only road they probably felt they could take, as they would find the other argument about democracy and the like more difficult to win.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

Those posters are aimed at the "uneducated masses", of which there are unfortunately quite a few. They'll work for them too.

It's emotive misinformative bullshit.

A sad indictment on those responsible for them.

Could not agree more, but Tories will always show their true colours eventually. One just has to be patient, they never let us down in the swimming in the gutter stuff.

Using a baby and a soldier is as sick as it comes IMO, truly vile. Wonder what we all get if they get their way then ?

[Condimentalist]

Like I said, spurious but brilliant.

They've got it in the bag.

I don't know, Mike. There's a significant anti-cuts sentiment already, as demonstrated (wahey!) over the weekend. This falls right into the Tory narrative of trying to pass everything as acceptable if it saves money. I don't think we should underestimate peoples ability to see through this one.

I'd like to hear what the 'no' supporters think of this campaign?

[bickster]

I'd like to hear what the 'no' supporters think of this campaign?

Not seen it to be perfectly honest, nor do I really think I'll go out of my way to look as it won't change my mind purely because there are some twuntish arguments on my "side" of the debate. To be perfectly honest I'm shocked that there is a no campaign as I maintain that under AV it'll make sod all difference except to further marginalise any party other than the big three.

I'm firmly of the opinion that this system of voting will marginalise minority parties further and to a large extent preserve the status quo of three "big" parties for a long time to come. The only party who will benefit from this to any great extent are the Liberals. It will obly affect the results in very few seats, there aren't that many three way marginals and not many two way one thats the third party's votes would have much sway.

It's an irrelevance and a sop to the Liberals

[LondonLax]

To be perfectly honest I'm shocked that there is a no campaign as I maintain that under AV it'll make sod all difference except to further marginalise any party other than the big three.

It doesn't make you think that you may have misjudged the impact?

[bickster]

To be perfectly honest I'm shocked that there is a no campaign as I maintain that under AV it'll make sod all difference except to further marginalise any party other than the big three.

It doesn't make you think that you may have misjudged the impact?

No absolutely not, unlike the scaremongering f**kwits who are running that campaign, I've read up on and participated in many non-first past the post elections in my time. AV will make so little difference apart from cementing the three main parties and marginalising the rest, the only party it will benefit in this country are the Liberals but only slightly. The only reason the Tories have agreed to even have a referendum is because they know deep down it'll have no real effect even if they lose and as a bargaining deal they got the Liberals to agree to changing the way the boundaries work for the constituencies. The boundary changes are far far more important to the Tories than changing to the AV system.

Quite simply the whole thing is a big sham, just like the rest of the politics in this country

EDIT: Being completely cynical it wouldn't shock me to later find that that campaign was designed to help the pro AV campaign by getting their "lefty" vote up and ensuring the vote was won, so the Tories could push through their boundary changes