Is a referendum on AV enough?
At 5.32pm I asked whether the Liberal announcements this afternoon were “Calamity or canny politics” .
Well it would seem that the moves by the Liberals did indeed enhance Cameron’s hand such that – regardless of all those Tory back bench MP’s comments through this the day about preferring a minority Tory government to a Lib/Con agreement – the Conservative parliamentary party are, following their meeting, now backing an offer of a referendum on AV to the Liberals. And fixed term parliaments – though I thought that was already on the table – perhaps not!
There are questions that remain to be answered… WHEN would the referendum be held (ie soon?) andwill they put the legislative process in place beforehand, such that IF the referendum is passed by the voters – it goes onto the statute book a week or two after…. No long grass….
But then just as I am about to hit “publish” …I get a call to say that the Labour party have now privately offered the Liberals legislation on AV anda referendum on PR. Aution-orama…
The Liberals have invited talks with the Labour party – and I suppose to turn around just 3 hours later and say “oh sorry guys we were just using you to get the Tories to the position we needed” might not be diplomatic. So I guess an hour or two or talks is necessary to save face.
But the lib/lab alliance would NOT be stable…it cant work… and would be a disaster. It’s a small step from being canny to over-egging it . Get this sorted soon.. Tie up the loose ends…do the deal with the Tories…..4 days is enough and people are beginning to tire of it now.
May 10th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
One of the main problems with rushing into AV is that it does not address the disparity in size between the Constituencies. But this then raises the problem if you start down that road you need up to two years just to sort that out. Also there is a consensus in the House that there are as many Labour Members gainst it as there are Conservative ones. They could easily shaft the legislation.
May 10th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
@Angela
I agree. Its the only feasible solution, either as coalition partner, or as I suggest, as Tory minority government.
However, I would be interested in learning your thoughts about this. I can’t help but think that the Lib Dems are in an extraordinarily difficult position. A referendum on AV+ just doesn’t do it, looking at the damage we could take on both our right and left flank: right flank because we might be giving a reason to vote Tory if this coalition works, left flank in that left-leaning liberals might despise the Lib Dems forever, if they support the Tories.
Surely we really need a refernedum on STV rather than AV+?
I welcome your thoughts.
May 10th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
No. It’s a joke. We all think it’s a joke. It’s almost worse than FPTP.
May 10th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
@mpg – Spot on. Look how it works;
Party A says ‘okay, we’ll give you a referendum AV+ with closed lists’. We say ‘great’. They have the referendum and campaign for a no vote by pointing out all the bad things about a two-tier closed list system (all the reasons AV+ is inferior to STV). Big-ass elephant trap.
May 10th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
It is the plus element in AV+ that I find hard to support as it puts the power back into the party list. They list these people in the order they want. I want to have the power to say that Candidate A is better than Candidate B even if they come from the same party.
May 10th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
AV for Westminster, substantial devolution of education, healthcare and policing to more local bodies – campaign for STV for those where multi-member wards and coalitions are already common.
Don’t agree mpg on not doing deal – at least if LDs do that they should not offer “supply and confidence” – propping up Tories must involve real influence round the table, not merely as potential wreckers.
May 10th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Labour will not be able to deliver the AV legislation. The Conservatives and the left of the Labour Party will vote against it, and so it is a pointless offer. Not that I want AV, as a LibDem I want PR – but the mathematics at Westminster are not there and so the whole discussion is pointless, you cannot make dreams come true by wishful thinking.
May 10th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
the issue is not FPTP in the commons which is crude but works:it is having a fully elected upper house with pr
May 10th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
We will never get AV with the Tories. Murdoch, The Mail, The Express and SKY will see to it.
The level of animosity towards AV from those outlets will ensure the Tories have their way, the referendum will be lost, we will then return to our constituencies and will be reduced to 15 seats.
Aside from Tim Farron, Nick Clegg, Norman Lamb and perhaps Norman Baker, David Lawsmm, Don Foster, and a handful of other seats, we will be wiped out and thousands of our deliverers, activists and councillors will have left or lost their seats and enthusiasm.
Our current bunch of MPs will be remembered like Rmasay McDonald is in the Labour Party.
May 10th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
I’m a Conservative party member who wants a coalition with the Lib Dems.
It is not so hard to see we could work together on areas like debt reduction, civil liberties, the environment and lower taxes. Both the Lib Dem and Conservative negotiating teams have spent a lot of time working together the last few days figuring out a program that we could jointly take forward and now with the offer of a referendum on changing the voting system in my view it should be a simple choice.
I hope it works out and we get a Con-Lib Dem coalition and can get rib of this authoritarian and socialist Labour government.
May 10th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
I do think that tonight’s shenanigans were necessary though, and probably not just for the Lib Dem leadership’s chances of getting a deal through with the Tories, but also for many back bench Tories in particular to see that there was no other way to a “stable” government involving them.
The game play has been fascinating, though not a little repugnant to me since it is all about who gets power to control the most violent, brutish, murderous, unjust and inequitable organisation in Britain – government.
May 10th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Is pushing through AV with no public consultation really fair and democratic? Most of the public will have only heard about this in the last few months when Gordo got desperate. Labour’s manifesto pledge was a referendum wasn’t it?
Still, it wouldn’t be the first time a referendum promise was broken …
May 10th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
If it were not for the urgent need to uncover the nation’s true indebtedness and to tackle that, I would welcome the Lib Dems falling for Labour’s enticements. The result would be initial public outrage and things could then only get worse, culminating in another GE soon and this probably guaranteeing the Tories with a landslide majority. Then, LibDems, watch out for the retribution which would be inflicted upon you.
May 10th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
guys..thanks for your thoughts… I think there comes a point.. and my post suggests it’s soon …. when you have to piss or get off the pot.
Maybe today was necessary…I am quite sure that we will never get the dream political reform…even if we could agree with each other what that was ..and even that seems unlikely… there does come a point however when Nick and the lib dems will start to look like they are getting greedy..dont know what they are doing…playing petty party politics .. or all of the above… at the expense of the national interest…
My main concern right now is for the “strong stable government” that david laws referred to this lunch time – that can get on with sorting out the big stuff… I am sure most voters will agree..
May 10th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
I do believe LDs are also more likely to be able to tease out more classical liberal policies with the Tories than with anyone else – including on their own.
May 10th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
Well, the LibDems are stupid if they are tempted by AV. Its not proportional, if anything its more distortionary.
Labour has far too many opponents of PR to be able to get anything through in its current state (it was Jack Straw’s railing against PR which convinced me of its necessity – I doubt he and others like him will change their mind).
Propping up Labour would be an absolute disaster electorally as well and do people really expect the Labour Party to suddenly change its spots and axe ID cards and its whole technocratic, centralised state?
I share the distaste many have with the Tories – to the level that I can’t contemplate voting for them, but for a government which might reverse many of the disastrous policies since 1997 they are the only option.
May 10th, 2010 at 11:46 pm
I think AV is an improvement and it’s probably the best that’s going to be possible in the short term. If it was up to me, I’d take the option of a referendum, work to push it through and then focus on moving the House of Lords to being fully elected by STV, which should be an easier task to achieve.
As soon as you’ve got an upper house which is more proportional and arguably more representative than the lower house, you’ve got a constitutional conflict in which something has to give – either the voting system in the lower house, or the Parliament Act.
May 11th, 2010 at 7:16 am
There has to be a referendum on voting reform. That’s what democracy is all about. There are more important things to deal with now, like the economy. I know there’s a great deal of smoothing out to do, but the more it appears like the Lib Dems are dragging this out the worst they are going to look.
May 11th, 2010 at 7:40 am
I think I’d vote against AV. Even FPTP is preferable.
May 11th, 2010 at 8:10 am
Someone needs to be spinning against this sort of line too. No way are the Lib Dems dragging this out. Sorry – most of the country voted for Tory or Labour. The ethically right thing to do would be for those two to be talking. That whatever happens the minor party that shores up one of the two others stands to lose everything means they have to get it right.
May 11th, 2010 at 10:38 am
Whatever happens, I hope a *referendum* is sufficient. Shirley Williams was on the radio last night telling us she thought that changing the electoral system was too abstract and complicated for voters to worry their pretty little heads about, and that Parliament should just do it without a referendum. Such a sentiment is not liberal, and it’s not democratic.
May 11th, 2010 at 10:44 am
Are people really proposing that the Lib Dems join up with the authoritarian-shower that helped get this country into its present mess, be forced to kow tow to the nationalists at the expense of England, be stuck with Brown for another three months followed by a complete unknown quantity, seek to sneak AV through Parliament without consulting the people and have to rely on many anti-PR Labour MPs to do so and all this while not properly dealing with the deficit?
A deal with the Tories is the legitimate choice and a referendum on AV for the Commons really is the best offer the Lib Dems are going to get. We have to be realistic and accept AV as a flawed but marginally better option for the Commons but also push for a fully reformed Lords elected under full STV.
May 11th, 2010 at 11:41 am
Once upon a time there was a chief spin doctor who was forced to resign because he said PR wasn’t conditional on the Lib Dems going into coalition government.
Now what was that man’s name err? err? err?
Anyways who ever that man was he was wrong, because oh it seems that PR is very much conditional on the Lib Dems joining any coalition government.
May 11th, 2010 at 11:46 am
‘I do think that tonight’s shenanigans were necessary’
But Jock you don’t think government is necessary, I mean you did go on uS radio the other week & announce that you’re a bigot oh sorry meant anarchist.
I’m not sure why your posting here anyways i’d of thought this would all a bit to ‘statist’ for you
May 11th, 2010 at 11:48 am
“LOL”
Tunc.
May 11th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
You keep saying your an anarchist so I’m a bit bewildered as to any anarchist all that’s being proposed here is government or government & the mantra of anarcho-libertarians is government is the root of all evil.
May 11th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Sheesh, you are proving particularly dim this morning Ziggy.
Like it or not, government exists. Any move towards liberty will have to deal with the pile of poo that finally emerges from democracy’s arse.
Personally if there’s a “rainbow” coalition (government can never be “progressive” so I won’t call it that), then civil disobedience based on the total illegitimacy of that government would probably be a better option, if there’s a Lib-Con coalition I suspect there is more that liberty oriented folk can work with.
Either way though – the outcome is important. It would be inane fuckwittery to ignore it and not engage.
May 11th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Roger
One of the main problems with rushing into AV is that it does not address the disparity in size between the Constituencies
No. The disparity in size between the constituencies is not a major problem. The Electoral Commission is charged withdrawing up constituency boundaries making them around the same size in population.
It is a mark of the depressing stupidity of so many Tories and Tory-supporting commentators that they actually seem to believe that the distortions caused by the current system are largely due to differences in constituency size. The argument as to why the current system can produce weird results such as the largest party in terms of votes not getting the most seats requires just a little bit of mathematical logic. Any Tory who can’t see that might as well hang a sign round his neck reading “I’m stupid, me”. Can we really have such innumerate people in charge of this country?
AV is a trivial variation on the current system, if that is all the Tories can throw at us for a deal, it isn’t worth it. I’ve already gone on line to say that in the absence of anything else, the arithmetic in Parliament means supply and confidence to a Cameron minority government has to be it. And I am sure those who know my views will see that’s not because I have any liking for the Tories, it’s just an acceptance of what the system has given us. A referendum on AV is no grounds at all for any closer relationship than that.
May 11th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
I disagree fundamentally with “supply and confidence”. I would not give “confidence” to any government we cannot positively influence and by definition, “supply and confidence” only gives a negative influence.
May 12th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Extremely interesting post thank you for sharing I have added your site to my bookmarks and will check back
By the way this is off topic but I really like your sites layout.