All votes are equal, but some are more equal than others: The problem with the Alternative Vote

Only the second ever national referendum in British political history is taking place alongside local elections on May 5^th. The big question is: Do you want to change the voting system used at general elections from the current First Past the Post (FPTP) method to the Alternative Vote (AV) system?

This referendum on the way we elect our representatives in parliament came about as part of the coalition agreement which formed our current government. The Liberal Democrats wanted to change the way we vote to a Proportional Representation system (PR, where the number of members each party has in parliament is determined by the percentage of people who vote for that party) but the Conservatives were opposed to changing the voting system from FPTP. The compromise was this referendum, not on a change to PR as the Liberals wanted but to the AV which the Liberals see as better than the current system but is not drastically different from FPTP. This is an example of one of the many compromises that the Conservatives and the Liberals made to form a government together.

It is very rare to have a referendum like this in Britain, so as this history making vote creeps closer it’s a good time to examine the two systems on offer:

A NO vote on May 5^th will mean sticking with the current voting system, First Past the Post. Under this system everyone in a constituency gets one vote which they place for a candidate, the candidate with the most votes becomes that area’s representative in parliament.

A Yes vote on May 5^th will mean changing how we vote in general elections to the Alternative Vote system. Under this system voters can rank the candidates in order of preference, their first preference, second preferences, third preference and so forth depending on how many candidates there are. If no candidate gets over 50% of the first preferences cast then the candidate with the least votes is knocked out. The second preferences, of those who gave the knocked out candidate their first preference, are then added to the other candidate’s totals and count the same as their first preference. If no candidate has 50% of the votes then the process is repeated with the candidate with the least votes being knocked out and their votes going to the next highest preference that their voters indicated. This goes on until one candidate has over 50% of the vote, or there are no more votes that can be distributed.

The debate is being conducted by two cross party groups, ‘NO to AV’ and ‘YES to fairer votes’. The Conservatives and the Liberals are the main forces behind these respective groups. The Labour Party however are split down the middle, many Labour figures are prominent in calling for a NO vote (including former ministers like David Blunkett and John Prescott) but Ed Milliband the party leader supports AV.

The YES campaign has focused mainly on the idea that AV will force candidates to try and gain the support of up to 50% of their constituents in order to win, arguing that this means an end to safe seats and complacent MPs. Much of their advertisement has portrayed MP’s as currently being lazy and deaf to the wishes of the majority of the people they represent. This has upset many Labour MPs who believe that to be unfair and untrue populist propaganda. The YES campaign has also suggested that AV will increase the influence of less popular parties and their supporters on the outcomes of elections. Under the proposed system these supporters would be able to vote for their minor party of choice in the knowledge that they will still be able to affect the outcome through their order of preferences. The YES campaign has in this way gained the support of the Green Party and the UK Independence Party but has also contributed to the comical use of the British National Party in the referendum debate. Both sides have been keen to tar the other with the name of the extremist group and the YES suggestion that fringe parties would have more influence under AV proved to be an opportunity for the NO campaign to do just that; creating maps showing constituencies where BNP supporters’ preferences could determine the result. The Liberal Democrats in the YES campaign hit back by saying that the BNP’s leader Nick Griffin was against a change to AV and therefore on the NO campaign’s side. They neglected to mention that what Nick Griffin actually wants is the same thing as them; Proportional Representation not AV.

The NO campaign has adopted a fairly scattergun approach, firing a lot at the Alternative Vote and seeing what sticks. They have attacked its cost, complexity and obscurity most of all, but have also consistently highlighted the increased probability of further coalition governments under AV and thereby reducing accountability and increasing the likelihood of politicians breaking their election manifesto promises. Another strategy of the NO group has been to highlight the unpopularity of AV, especially amongst those campaigning for it; who would much prefer other systems such as PR. The most over used quote of the NO campaign has been Nick Clegg’s description of AV as ‘a miserable little compromise’. This unfortunate self defeating statement (obviously made before the Liberal leader knew he would soon be campaigning for AV) has contributed to Clegg being remarkably quiet during this referendum that he himself negotiated for. Although this is due more to his unpopularity with large sections of the public after his remarkable rise to messiah of the left and fall to traitor within a month last year.

I will be voting against the Alternative Vote, and the reason is twofold. My first problem is with the negative effect on politics that the introduction of AV would have. For one, in Australia, the only major country to use the system for national elections, AV was introduced for cynical political advantage. Two ideologically similar conservative parties (now often referred to as ‘the coalition’ because they regularly form governments together) introduced the system so they could combine votes to help keep out the opposing centre-left Labor Party. AV is not what the Liberals really want; it’s not fairer or more proportional but they are backing it for their own advantage. I also believe AV would encourage politicians to be more dishonest and vague; it rewards not upsetting anybody and punishes presenting clear honest opinions that some people will disagree with. Whilst a politician being dishonest and vague is obviously nothing new, I feel AV would make this more of a tactical necessity in the pursuit of second preferences from minor parties’ supporters.

Secondly, and most importantly, I disagree profoundly that one voter’s third preference is worth exactly the same as another voter’s first preference. Let alone the absurd idea that someone’s fourth, fifth or even sixth choice should count the same as someone else’s first choice in the final tally. No-one thinks that their own fifth preference is just as important as their first, but this is the assumption of AV. Furthermore the second preferences of the two most popular parties’ supporters will never be counted, this is a reform which specifically targets voters of minor parties and gives them more say in the outcome purely because their first choice happens to be for an unpopular party. This is not equal, this is not fair. First Past the Post is strictly equal; no second choices and no special dispensation to any group. One person, one vote and everyone’s vote counts exactly the same. This is a fundamental of democracy and should be defended.

The Alternative

The alternative to the coalition government’s economic strategy; over 250,000 people marched in favour of it at the weekend and, according to YouGov’s latest poll, 41% of voters would support the Labour party in delivering it. But answers to the question ‘what exactly is this alternative?’ remain varied, elusive and vague at best. A protest march organised and funded by a collection of public service unions can’t be expected to present anything more than a self interested message of opposition, but politicians who claim to represent these protesters in parliament should be able to present a substantial alternative plan. Unfortunately Ed Milliband’s balancing act is continuing as he tries to both appear to be on the side of the public sector protesters but also have a realistic economic plan for the country. The only way to do this is to remain vague about what exactly his government would do differently. So when Miliband addressed the TUC rally on Saturday he said of the alternative that so many people had come to march for: ‘two thirds of diddly squat’ as Boris Johnson put it. Probably for the best as his one mention of necessary cutbacks was met with heckling, the honest truth might have got him lynched. The truth being that a Labour government would have no choice but to follow a broadly similar strategy to the coalition, meaning big cuts and redundancies in the public sector. Exactly what the TUC march was rallying against. This puts the Labour leader’s appearance at the rally into serious question, with the Mayor of London describing it as ‘the most disgusting cheat and fraud’. Rumours of discontent from sections of the Labour ranks exist too, mainly over Miliband placing the anti-cuts campaign on a par with the American civil rights movement and the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa.

The Labour leadership’s backing of the march, whilst undoubtedly popular with the public sector workforce, could perhaps lead to greater scrutiny of their plans for the economy. Clearly there is a contradiction of being both on the side of thousands of people who oppose cuts in the public sector and still claiming to support Alistair Darling’s plan of action, which by his own admission involved public sector cuts that would exceed those of Margaret Thatcher. The deputy leader of the Labour party Harriet Harman was asked seven times on Monday to clarify the party’s position on public sector cuts, hopefully a sign of increased media scrutiny towards the party. Harman initially admitted there would be job losses under a Labour government before backtracking to say that Labour simply would not have increased public sector employment. After several more attempts to get some real detail from her, Harman was asked to name but one cut that Labour would make to reduce the deficit. All she could come up with was ‘we would consolidate back room functions’. Hopefully continued pressure will put upon Labour leadership to reveal a detailed alternative plan and be honest about their position. A real debate over what the best course of action is could then take place. Something tells me that is not going to happen since saying as little as possible and avoiding making difficult choices is proving to be so popular. But with Portugal slipping closer to a bailout in the last week (with their minority government unable to pass a deficit reducing budget) we should be glad that our other two major political parties have come together to take the hard decisions in tacking our country’s economic mess.

Oldham East and Saddleworth: An interesting by-election, or just a good riddance to an old enemy?

For the first time since the general election voters are going to the ballot box today. A by-election is taking place in the constituency of Oldham East and Saddleworth, due to a court ruling the general election result void. Whilst only one parliamentary seat is being fought over, the vote has taken on a greater national significance. As the first instance of voting since the general election the result in Oldham East and Saddleworth could provide an insight into the general public’s mood towards the coalition government and the Labour party in opposition. However what the analysts and party strategists will be looking at is not who wins the seat, as it will almost certainly be Labour, but the vote allocation between the parties.

Opposition parties nearly always win by-elections, and in this contest there is only one major party in opposition as the other two are part of a coalition government. A government which is having to increase taxes and cut public spending on a scale not seen for decades. All this means that we should witness a comfortable Labour hold but the numbers behind this hold will be important; to two men in particular. Ed Milliband will be hoping to see his party gain a large majority to give him ammunition to fight those that have doubted his ability in what has been a difficult start to his reign as Labour leader. Nick Clegg on the other hand will be hoping that the Liberal Democrat vote does not suffer a big collapse; putting further jitters within the party over the consequences of his decision to have them join the Conservative in government. The Conservatives themselves have less interest in the result but they will be keen to see that their vote doesn’t drop significantly either. Their candidate in the general election actually turned the seat into something of a three way marginal with a big 8.7% increase in the share of the vote leaving the Conservatives with 26.4% behind the Liberal Democrats on 31.6% and Labour with 31.9%. There has been some suggestion that the Conservatives have not but their hearts into the campaign in order to give the Lib Dems a better chance. There is even the possibility that some tactical voting by Conservative supporters might take place in order to prop up their coalition allies, although that seems unlikely.

Regardless of the outcome of today’s vote, the fact that it is taking place at all is cause for celebration. This is because the candidate whose general election victory in Oldham East and Saddleworth was declared void was Phil Woolas; the Immigration Minister in Gordon Browns Labour government. As a minister Phil Woolas had a habit of manipulating immigration figures and occasionally outright lying about them in order to defend Labour’s record. There was an instance where he was found to have lied about immigration figures on a morning politics show. He came back on the same show the next day after being asked to put the record straight, with new figures and statistics at hand he did so. As you have probably guessed these figures were also a manipulation of the truth, but he didn’t return for a third attempt at being honest. It was therefore a happy day for me when I heard that he had lost his seat and been suspended by his party. To top it off the reason why the courts ruled his victory void was due to him publishing and distributing vicious lies about his Liberal democrat opponent.
Rarely is such sweet justice delivered.

VAT increases and weeping reptiles

VAT, the tax politicians most keenly wanted to avoid
talking about during the election, was raised by 2.5% last night. The new rate is in line with the other major countries of Europe but it is still a tax increase which affects every voter in the country. Predictably therefore moral outrage and crocodile tears have flowed from the Labour ranks in an effort to capitalize on its potential unpopularity. The cry of ‘The wrong tax at the wrong time’ is certainly a good sound bite but does that mean a Labour government would have kept VAT at 17.5%?
Certainly not.

I’m sure Ed Milliband would find a way to deny that assertion, but not many could or indeed should take such a denial seriously. The estimated revenue from the increase is 13 billion pounds, the difference between the two parties economic plans going into the election was never that substantial and weren’t Labour the party which advocated more tax rises and less spending cuts anyway? The truth is politicians from all parties realized that an increase in VAT was going to be a major tool in reducing the country’s spending deficit and Ed Milliband was no different. During the election the economic spokesmen from the two most important parties maintained the same line ‘We have no plans to increase VAT’ but also maintained a stubborn refusal to rule it out. It’s sad that our politicians cannot be honest with us, but had either of them broken ranks and delivered the truth they would have paid for it at the ballot box, so can we blame them?

One party however did bring up the issue of VAT during the election, whilst the other two major parties did their best to avoid it, the Liberal Democrats. I read an article recently in a left-wing publication stating that the Lib Dems would be haunted by the image of their leaders in front of a poster decrying the Conservatives for planning to increase VAT, when they are now in a coalition government doing just that. What the writer of the article overlooked however is that when questioned during the election if he would therefore rule out a rise in VAT Vince Cable replied ‘We have no plans to increase VAT’.

Populist opportunism like this characterized the Liberals election campaign and for a while looked like a strategy which might deliver them second place ahead of Labour in terms of the popular vote. It is therefore no surprise that Ed Milliband is adopting similar tactics to revive his party’s fortunes. We should expect more from the leader of the opposition though, especially one who was part of a ruling government less than a year ago. His party should expect more from him too; alternative policies for how the country should deal with its deficit, not just blank pages, and crocodile tears.