Alan Thornett picks up the cudgel on behalf of AV again.
Counterfire is the latest far left organisation to declare for a NO vote in the referendum next week. Whilst they rightly attack First Past The Post (FTTP) and advocate PR, they argue (wrongly in my view) that AV would be worse for small parties than FPTP! This, they argue, is because the requirement under AV for a candidate to win at least 50% of the vote would have disqualified both George Galloway and Caroline Lucas in recent elections!
But this is the wrong approach to the issue. Surely the 50% requirement is a modest progressive reform which should be supported in principle — even if it would occasionally prevent a left-wing candidate being elected on a minority vote! Though whether such candidates would actually lose out under AV would depend on the distribution of other preferences.
Caroline Lucas, for example, would be likely to pick up a lot of second preferences in Brighton and might well have won under AV. She is campaigning for a YES vote.
In any case the way to redress injustice against small parties in the is not to defend an undemocratic system but to fight for more democracy.
The comrades stress that AV is not a proportional system, which is true of course. It only deals with the constituency vote and therefore has no mechanism for creating a proportional Parliament. That does not mean, however, that it is not a significant improvement over FPTP — it clearly is.
This is because it allows supporters of small parties to vote for them as a first preference and still express a view on the main parties. It avoids (partially at least) the problem of the wasted vote and means that the votes for small parties can be fully reflected in the election. It also reduces the need for tactical voting.
The article also argues that the issue of voting reform is a distraction from the struggle against the cuts. But it is wrong to counterpose these two issues. Electoral reform has been thrown up by the last election results and it has to be taken seriously by the left. If not now when! FPTP outrageously distorted politics in Britain to the advantage of the ruling class for the whole of the 20th century. If it gets a thumping endorsement in this referendum, as looks likely, it will be set to do so for the foreseeable future.
A YES vote, on the other hand would have a chance of leading to further reform. It would show an appetite for change whilst a NO vote would show an appetite for the status quo. Most of those supporting a YES vote (including most Lib Dems) see AV as inadequate and want to go further towards a PR system.
In the event of a NO vote those who have won it (and in that sense own it) will be supporters of FPTP and will regard it and use it to defend the existing system. Any mention of electoral reform would in future be met with the stock response that “we have had a referendum and that is the end of it”.
The other point which the comrades stress is that the referendum should be used to give the Lib Dems a good kicking. This, in my view, is both wrong as a method of approach and wrong in its assessment of the effects of a NO vote.
Whichever way the vote goes it will cause a crisis in the coalition — it is already doing so. Whilst a NO vote would precipitate a crisis for the Lib Dems a YES vote would be totally unacceptable to a swathe of Tory MPs, who see FPTP as akin to a religion, and could provoke an even bigger crisis in the Tory Party. If you want to use your vote to damage the coalition, therefore, use it to damage the puppet master not the puppet.
At the end of the day, however, the issue of AV, however, should not be judged on the conjunctural effect the outcome might have on the coalition partners but whether it is an improvement (even a very small one) over the existing system and does it have the propensity to open the door to further reform towards a proportionate system
`they argue (wrongly in my view) that AV would be worse for small parties than FPTP!’
Who cares what is good or bad for small parties? This is indicative of your self-serving sectarian approach. The interest of the working class and the labour movement as a whole are best served in this referendum by a NO vote as there is no principled argument showing AV to be a better method of formal democracy than FPTP. In fact the opposite as it seems to guarantee a Lib Dem programme will always be what the electorate will be asked to vote for under AV. A NO vote will act as a referendum on this Coalition and will make it very difficult for it to continue functioning whilst a Yes vote will strengthen it as the Lib Dems will be able to lie that they have got something out of the Coalition and Cameron will be able to lie that he takes the Coalition seriously. He will even use a Yes to push through other anti-democratic reforms whereas these will be harder to sell in the teeth of a NO. It is only causing a crisis in the Coalition now because a NO vote looks, of course, assured.
Its ridiculous for Dave to accuse Alan of a Self serving sectarian approach for just putting a line that AV as an advance in bourgeois democracy is worth voting for. Actually AV would help small parties (ie a far left challenge) over FPTP. However it is also a step forward as a more democratic system. Some on the British left argue that all that matters at the moment is the fight against cuts and a discussion over the electoral system is a distraction – this is sheer economism. You can fight against the cuts and campaign for AV. People may be distracted about how this affects Clegg on May 6th but we need to consider that AVwould be a step forward beyond FPTP that the conservatives would happily live with forever and a day (and has worked against the left for the last 100 years).
With AV defeated today Cameron will be shackled to a corpse that refuses to release its death grip to mix a few metaphores. He will have to decide whether to call a snap general election and look stupid or limp on with an unwilling partner obstructing his every plan in order to try to differentiate itself and recover electorally in time for the next scheduled election. The people, being a bit cleverer than liberal and lefty politicians and recognizing there was no real principle involved in this vote just a load of meaningless hot air have it seems declined to give this Coalition any kind of mandate or legitimacy and in so doing signalled its desire to see it gone despite the attempted sabotage by Ed Milliband and the rest of the New Labour no marks who refused to give a lead but are happy to believe they can waltz back into power in four years time the cuts already made for them. What they don’t tell you is that in four years time if the ruling class has its way there will be no labour movement capable of getting a Labour government elected or which by then even cares whether it comes first or fifty first.
Cuts are still coming but from a potentially fatally wounded Coalition so prepare for action and prepare for a general election and prepare to prevent New Labour from trying to do everything possible to lose that election.
Basically, people who defend FPTP are unwittingly supporting the disenfrachisement of large swathes of the working class. I live in a constituency where, whoever you vote for (barring a pre-revolutionary crisis, or a fascist upsurge) Labour will win. The result is that it has one of the lowest participation rates in elections in the country. How (bourgeois) democratic is that?
AV will be a slight improvement, for the reasons Alan Thornett outlines.