Backing AV is the best hope for progressive reform
Sunder Katwala (London, Fabians):The British electoral system is broken. Few people have noticed because close general elections are so rare. 2005 was the first election for over 30 years where the major parties finished within five per cent of each other (and the narrow defeat of an unelectable opposition by an unpopular government was hardly a genuinely competitive contest).
The next election could be the first since 1992 when we can’t all predict who will win when the campaign opens. But a return to competitive politics without electoral reform leaves us all playing Russian roulette with British democracy. So the government’s apparent willingness to put electoral reform back on the agenda is important. The reforms being mooted - the Alternative Vote for the Commons, alongside a PR-elected Senate - could be the basis for an elusive consensus, though this will require a willingness to compromise on all sides.
Steve Richards makes a powerful case for Gordon Brown promoting such a reform. He reports too that Nick Clegg seems open to AV. (His deputy Vince Cable hinted that he thought an AV deal was possible on the Labour fringe last Autumn). Richards urges Brown to move quickly so that Labour’s manifesto can commit to a referendum after the next election. (That would make the politics of any hung parliament interesting, though it would remain difficult for the LibDems to rescue a Labour government which had lost its majority). Perhaps the reality is that time is running out for any reform before the next election. However, with a 2010 election seeming increasingly likely, an audaciously simple way to introduce electoral reform would be to draw up a single clause Bill to change all ‘X’ voting in Britain into ‘1, 2, 3′ preferential voting. And perhaps a closer look at how wobbly the current system has become could make the necessity and urgency of reform clearer - and persuade Conservatives that they should have an interest in reform too.
It is worth stressing that this ‘broken system’ claim is not about the traditional argument between supporters and opponents of proportional representation. Supporters of PR oppose a system which usually gives one party a majority of seats for a minority of votes. But others see this ‘majoritarian’ feature as the central virtue of our system: rough justice to smaller parties is a price worth paying to give voters a clear chance to kick governments in and out without the confusions of coalition.
The rights and wrongs of that argument miss a deeper crisis of first-past-the-post. It has become a majoritarian system which can not be expected to do what it says on the tin: pick the right winning party. I sketched out one possible consequence in my Fabian Review essay last Autumn:
It is one minute past ten pm on Sunday 4 May 2013. After a hard-fought campaign, the most expensive pie chart in BBC history spins towards the viewers. Has the New Tory call for ‘change’ finally worked? Their fetching new sky blue segment at 39 per cent edges the Prime Minister’s deeper red back to 37 per cent, and the Lib Dems are squeezed to 21 per cent. Seven nail-biting hours later, Labour is back for a fifth term with a slim working majority of 14. Not because the exit polls got it wrong - they turned out to be uncannily accurate - but because the electoral system did.
Result: meltdown. “Democracy crisis as losing party wins” reports the Times. “Labour’s Strange Victory - half a million votes behind”, says The Guardian. “Disunited Kingdom: Tory England denied” complains the Telegraph. “Stolen: The Great Election Shambles”, shouts the Mail. “No Mandate to Govern”, declares The Independent. One question dominates angry radio phone-ins: why weren’t we told this could happen?
Such an outcome is hardly unpredictable. The conditions for such a crisis have been in place for two decades. Look at how John Major led by 7.5% in 1992 to win a slender majority of 21, while Tony Blair’s 2.9% lead last time was worth a majority three times as large. The causes of this electoral bias are complex: too few marginals as the country has polarized politically, and uneven falls in turnout are not factors which boundary reviews can fix. (Compulsory voting without any broader reform could remove part of the pro-Labour bias). Next time around, Labour could expect to be 90 seats ahead of level on votes, and still be the largest party in the Commons when up to five points behind. David Cameron needs a nine point lead just to escape hung parliament territory. But all previous reform efforts have ended in stalemate.
However, Jack Straw’s conversion to the Alternative Vote, having been Labour’s staunchest critic of PR, highlights the retention of many features of the current system: single-member constituencies, with the MP-constituency link strengthened, and a tendency to deliver single-party majorities in parliament.
While supporters of PR would not get all they want, the Alternative Vote offers several pluralist advances on the current system. Every MP would need to seek majority support in their constituencies, encouraging them to reach out beyond their core vote. Every party could poll its full support everywhere, ending the dilemmas of tactical voting and wasted votes, allowing southern Labour voters and northern Tories to come out and the Greens to develop bargaining power in close contests. The historically strong bias against the LibDems would not be eliminated, but they might expect to double their representation in parliament. And AV decides close elections by a politically relevant factor (voter preferences) rather than an arbitrary one (the geographical concentration of votes).
Supporters of PR lack any alternative strategy likely to bring about full PR within the next five years. The Jenkins Report’s analysis is excellent, but its hybrid reform (”AV plus”) is literally unworkable. After a referendum, it would not be possible to redraw every constituency boundary so as to implement reform in time for the next General Election. Could one final general election really be held under a system already rejected by the voters?
Probably the worst strategy of all is to hope for PR as the price of coalition in a hung parliament. Gifting opponents the charge of a political fix, not a principled reform, could lead to rejection in a referendum and so scupper reform for generations. Still, many will expect reform to fizzle out. Some of my Labour colleagues are unlikely to be moved by an argument about anti-Tory bias (though they might want to reflect on whether a party which won in such a fashion could escape serious long-term damage). Others such as David Lipsey have stressed the broader democratic principles at stake.
But why has the Tory party remained in denial? The party’s submission to Jenkins (PDF file)was a study in ill-informed complacency. Nostalgia for the Thatcher era, a failure to pay attention to the evidence, and the party’s failure to think seriously about power for most of the last decade have all played their part.
The Tories’ uniquely toxic unpopularity in 1997 means AV would have increased Labour’s majority. A party stuck on its core vote and unpopular across the country will do badly under AV (whether Labour in 1983 or the Tories in 1997). But such a party is also unelectable under FPTP and uncoalitionable under PR. The impact of AV now would be to lock in the modernisation of the Conservative party.
The issue needs to be publicly settled. If the current system, warts and all, were endorsed in a referendum then even bizarre results might be considered legitimate. But making electoral reform part of the Brown ‘constitutional settlement’ could yet breathe life into hopes of a broad progressive consensus.
Sunder Katwala is General Secretary of the Fabian Society, and is writing in a personal capacity.
Filed under: Electoral reform
Andrew Curry writes:
Obviously as a democrat I agree with broad thrust of this (AV is better than a single vote system) but AV in single member constituencies is not going to have a significant effect on improving representation or the articulation of views in the system, which I believe is the purpose of the change.
To achieve these aims we also need to move to multi-member constituencies.
The reasons are obvious enough: it’s only when one moves to multi-member constituencies that groups which command some support - but are not broad electoral coalitions like the main parties - have a chance of being elected. We are unlikely to see a Green MP in single member constituencies, but may see a few in multi-member constituencies.
Secondly, although there’s lots of Parliamentary voodoo spoken about the alleged ‘bond’ between the MP and their constituents, it’s not clear that this improves the quality of representation, certainly when it comes to political issues rather than functional bureaucratic interventions.
I’ve had experience of this recently when my constituency changed hands, from an MP whose party I supported to one I didn’t. I probably write/email him about once every six months about local or national issues, and it’s clear from his replies that whenever my concern disagrees with his views, which is more often than not, they are getting weeded out of the discourse. They’re not being articulated in any way into the national political process. With multi-member constituencies, the chances of having at least one area MP who was sufficiently sympathetic to one’s views to make sure that the sense of them was represented nationally.
No doubt someone will express the concern that the ballot paper becomes more complicated, with more names on it. Well, yes, it does, though no more complicated than my current council ballot paper, which doesn’t seem to confuse people too much.
And if this really is an issue, given that we apparently have a creative industries sector which is the envy of the known world, I’m sure some bright (young?) designer can be found to work on the problem.
An alternative scenario is one in which the introduction of AV isn’t a stepping stone to PR but actually works to close down the debate. The government could introduce AV as an ordinary parliamentary bill without a referendum, as you say, and follow it with compulsory voting on the basis that the voting system is now fairer. With 95% odd turnout at every election we will have lost the main indicator of the health of our democracy and one of the best arguments for PR. I’m afraid that, as with many of Labour’s constitutional reforms, it might be a case of “reform in order to preserve”. A hung parliament is the best hope of the radical reform we need and I’m not sure about your argument asgainst it. How could the public object to being offered a vote on how they elect MPs? It seems like the opposite of a stitch up (unlike AV and compulsory voting).
Sunder Katwala: “The British electoral system is broken”
At least we can agree on that. However I am instinctively reticent about AV for a number of reasons.
Firstly it is not proportional and experience elsewhere - Australia is the best example - leads us to conclude that it merely entrenches the dominance of mainstream incumbents. For British democracy to thrive it needs, above all, diversity; that means new entrants on to the political landscape to challenge the existing players and shake them out of their cosy non-aggression pact in the middle ground.
Secondly why has Labour suddenly warmed towards this idea. Labour cynically reneged on the promise of a review and referendum on meaningful reform in 1997. They held the review all right and then the party tribalists took over and kicked the recommendations into the long Westminster grass where they are still festering.
You report Jack Straw’s sudden conversion to the Alternative Vote, after years of visceral opposition. Is it mere coincidence that AV (or better still for Labour SV) would have the effect of consolidating anti-Conservative sentiment in many marginal constituencies and under AV / SV the marginals remain pivotal to overall election outcomes. For Labour, AV / SV is the perfect counter measure to Ashcroft’s cynically targeted spending.
Sunder Katwala: “Supporters of PR lack any alternative strategy likely to bring about full PR within the next five years.”
Wrong! - I have a perfectly feasible strategy right here in front of me now; would you like me to send you a copy? Unfortunately the democratic renewal campaign group I belong to wouldn’t support it officially because it meant abandoning political neutrality and actively advising the public to engage in widespread tactical voting in order to “engineer” a hung parliament result.
Sunder Katwala: “Probably the worst strategy of all is to hope for PR as the price of coalition in a hung parliament.”
Why - please do explain to me what other possible set of circumstances is even remotely likely to deliver meaningful, (i.e. proportionality) reform in the foreseeable future - I’m all ears?
Should Labour or the Conservatives be returned at the next general election, under FPTP, even with a small working majority, they will both gleefully seize the opportunity, override public sentiment and play out another five year Westminster farce, just as John Major did in 1992 and Blair/Brown have since 2005. The Conservatives in particular remain implacably opposed to proportionality because they know they could never ever again hope to form a single party government administration.
No, like many others I am deeply mistrustful of Labour’s motivations. AV is a convenient sticking plaster solution that utterly fails to solve the gaping hole in British democracy.
I would only accept AV as a reform introduced before the next general election as part of a clearly laid out and mutually agreed (at least between all parties except the Conservatives and that means some who are not in Parliament because of FPTP) unequivocal timetable leading initially to a massive public information campaign followed quickly by a referendum offering the electorate real choice between retaining the incumbent FPTP or moving to an intrinsically proportional system - my personal preference being multi-member STV.
This goal could easily be achieved by using an AV style ballot paper with all viable alternatives listed, thus allowing the public to make an informed and sophisticated choice about the voting system used to elect representatives to the UK’s sovereign lawmaking chamber.
Democracy is a precious a commodity; its function should not be determined by mere politicians!
Sunder Katwala: “The British electoral system is broken”
At least we can agree on that. However I am instinctively reticent about AV for a number of reasons.
Firstly it is not proportional and experience elsewhere - Australia is the best example - leads us to conclude that it merely entrenches the dominance of mainstream incumbents. If it is to thrive British democracy needs diversity - that means new entrants on to the political landscape to challenge the mainstream incumbents and shake them out of their cosy non-aggression pact in the middle ground.
Secondly why has Labour suddenly warmed towards this idea? Labour cynically reneged on the promise of a review and referendum on meaningful reform in 1997 - they held the review all right and then the party tribalists took over and kicked the recommendations into the long Westminster grass where they are still festering.
You report Jack Straw’s sudden conversion to the Alternative Vote, after years of visceral opposition. Is it mere coincidence that AV (or better still for Labour SV) would have the effect of consolidating anti-Conservative sentiment in many marginal constituencies and under AV / SV the marginals remain pivotal to overall election outcomes? For Labour, AV / SV is the perfect counter measure to Ashcroft’s cynically targeted spending.
Sunder Katwala: “Supporters of PR lack any alternative strategy likely to bring about full PR within the next five years.”
Wrong! - I have a perfectly feasible strategy right here in front of me now; would you like me to send you a copy? Unfortunately the democratic renewal campaign group I belong to wouldn’t support it officially because it meant abandoning political neutrality and actively advising the public to engage in widespread tactical voting in order to “engineer” a hung parliament result.
Sunder Katwala: “Probably the worst strategy of all is to hope for PR as the price of coalition in a hung parliament.”
Why - please do explain how any other possible set of circumstances is even remotely likely to deliver meaningful, (i.e. proportionality) reform in the foreseeable future - I’m all ears?
Should Labour or the Conservatives be returned at the next general election, under FPTP, even with a small working majority, they will both gleefully override public opinion and play out another five year Westminster farce, just as John Major did in 1992. The Conservatives remain implacably opposed to proportionality because they know they could never ever again hope to form a single party government administration.
No, like many others I am deeply mistrustful of Labour’s motivations. AV is a convenient sticking plaster solution that utterly fails to solve the gaping hole in British democracy.
I would only accept AV for the next general election as part of a clearly laid out and mutually agreed unequivocal timetable leading firstly to a massive public information campaign followed quickly by a referendum offering the electorate real choice between retaining the incumbent FPTP or moving to an intrinsically proportional system - my personal preference being multi-member STV.
This could easily be achieved by using an AV style ballot paper with all viable alternatives listed, thus allowing the public to make an informed and sophisticated choice about the voting system used to elect representatives to the UK’s sovereign lawmaking chamber.
Democracy is a precious commodity; its function should not determined by mere politicians!
Unfortunately we have a situation where the way we elect our representatives is decided by the party which happens to be in power- not by the electorate. In his report Jenkins observed ,: “if this disposition (wider statesmanship) persists this Labour government will have the unique distinction of having broken the spell under which parties when they want to have reform do not have the power; and when they have the power they do not want to reform.” How right he was, as the Labour arch-tribalists cynically proved after the 1997 election.
The current apparent increasing support for AV amongst Labour MP’s for AV (if when they use the term AV they really mean AV and not the far worse SV system) has nothing whatever to do with concern for true democracy. They can see that under FPTP they could well land back on the opposition benches after the next election; and AV with left-of-centre later preferences might save them. (This of course means that if they really have decided to go for AV they should ensure that it is introduced BEFORE the next election)
If we face political facts there is not a cat in hell’s chance of getting PR for Westminster in the foreseeable future, even if the government at last recognised their bad faith in abandoning the 1997 manifesto commitment. There would probably now not be enough time before the next election to go through all the steps needed - boundary changes, a pre-referendum educational process and the referendum itself .
If the Tories get in at the next election we could certainly abandon hope of reform of any kind indefinitely. At least with Labour there is at least a chance that AV (ie STV in single-member consituencies) might eventully form the platform for the introduction of the much more proportional STV in multi-member constituencies - especially if their majority depended on later preference votes for other left-of-centre parties
Andrew C - Your comments on the constituency link are a ray of sunshine in this debate.
“Parliamentary Voodoo” is exactly right. MPs of all parties hide behind the “constituency link” fig leaf without ever producing a shred of evidence for its utility besides some soppy anecdote about how their constituents “keep them in touch with reality”.
Two points:
1 - the constituency link that people venerate is a link between 1 individual and 1 MP. There’s is no reason why 1 individual to 3 MPs could not be referred to/act as a constituency link. The Hansard Audit of Engagement 5, launched yesterday, shows that only 15% of people have contacted their MP in the last 3 years. Democracy is not going to crumble overnight if we introduce multi-member constituencies.
2 - size of multi-member constituencies: Britain is a small and relatively densely populated country. If AV is a good system then the few Highlands and Islands constituencies that truly are too sparsely populated to support multi-member constituencies can operate AV (STV in single member constituencies).
For the rest of Britain we can move to a single-transferable vote (STV) system based on 3 member constituencies without this stupid idea that we will all be travelling miles out of our way to speak to our MP. The vast majority of communication with MPs (postal/email) has no relation to geographical distance anyway.
I raised this with Ed Milliband at a Fabian event last summer at which he seemed to imply that his (North Doncaster) constituency couldn’t possibly be incorporated with the South and Central Doncaster constituencies because the people of Doncaster couldn’t possibly cope with or comprehend this vast and impassable swathe of England.
Simply locate the MPs in a single building (or even better the Council building) in the centre of Doncaster and those who truly have a need to visit their MP face to face will do as they have always done in this instance (as well as whenever they need to go the cinema/club/full high street etc) - they get in the car/get on the bus and go to town. They also get the bonus pay-off of having more than one MP to chose from - any maybe even one of their own party/persuasion.
The same applies for anywhere with an urban/rural mix, which in a country of market towns and cities is pretty much everywhere. Those few isolated areas where it doesn’t apply can use AV or 2 member constituencies, which is still an improvement on what we have now.
The point about change and reform is that things will be different. In a land of suposed individuals and eccentrics I find the current addiction to centralisation, tradition and uniformity deeply disturbing.
Rant over.
Surely the most favourable scenario for the introduction of PR would be a hung parliament with the Lib Dems holding the balance of power - making electoral reform a condition of their support of the government. Unless, that is, they can be persuaded by Labour to go for AV now (ahead of the next election - unlikely, I suppose), on the basis that of all the parties, they stand to benefit most from it - which would be a completely venal betrayal of their long-standing support for a genuinely fair, proportional system, which AV of course is not.
But on the subject of compulsory voting, there’s still the option of spoiling the ballot paper, isn’t there; so if you want to mark your rejection of all the self-serving major parties and don’t support any of the smaller parties, this is always a way out. Unless, Brown’s surveillance society is going to be extended to the voting booth and polling station!
David, aka Britology Watch
Steve Skelton
Your comment is anything but a rant - rather a structured case in favour of multi-member STV
I would argue that the concept of multi-member constituencies can be extended across the entire UK, my preference being for enlarged boundaries equivalent to 3, 4 or 5 of the current version depending on location, thus introducing a significant element of proportionality whilst maintaining a sense of local immediacy.
Interesting insight into your confrontation with Ed Milliband; seems as though he realised he had been rumbled and was just resorting to mere bluster. Wish I could have been there to see it.