...the 'No to AV' campaign have evidently decided that it's high time to drive the point home rather more directly, with a two-page newspaper ad in which the photo of a desperately ill baby is accompanied by the words -
"She needs a new cardiac facility NOT an alternative voting system."
I've found the sheer brazenness of the previous posters quite amusing in a way, but this is just an utter disgrace. As there is now clearly no low to which they won't sink, here are a few helpful suggestions for future No posters...
1) A picture of a child drowning, followed by the words "She needed action against rising sea levels NOT an alternative voting system".
2) A picture of a murder victim (a child obviously), lying in a pool of blood on the floor, followed by the words "The police might have got there in time if you hadn't voted for AV".
3) A close-up of a Jewish holocaust victim (a child), followed by the words "Don't let this happen again. Say NO to AV and genocide".
As I've said before, I wish I could be 100% confident that such despicable campaigning tactics (which unambiguously prove that the No side know they are losing the real argument) will backfire, but I can't. Either way, you have to ask - shouldn't there come a point where basic decency is more important than winning?
Surely you have to admire the "no" crowd for feeling so strongly about a mooted reform which is an utter triviality to everyone else, including those promoting it.
ReplyDeleteI just wish I could believe they had such a passion for "new cardiac facilities" in real life, but given what we know about the people involved that seems overwhelmingly unlikely.
ReplyDeleteI agree AV won't (wouldn't) make a huge difference, but it is a slightly better system than FPTP, and the real hope is that it might take us closer to PR. Perhaps a better way of putting it is that I fear a No vote would kill all hope of meaningful electoral reform for decades, and if that's true this vote is anything but trivial.
I will be voting “no” simply because it has as many problems as FPTP and I suspect a “yes “ victory will put STV to bed for a generation while we all wait to see how AV works in practice.
ReplyDeleteAV has as many faults as FPTP too many for me to list here. But I would direct people’s attention to this excellent site that explains it far better than me:
AV Referendum Q&A
I do not see the need for the “no” campaign to have such a vitriolic campaign when all the polls suggest that all they have to do to secure victory is explain what AV actually is. People it seems do want a change but most people who say “yes” don’t actually know what AV is and when it is explained to them then they become “no”s.
See:
UK polling report
Munguin, on the latter point, I'm quite sure if a pollster spelt out exactly what STV is, many potential supporters would turn against it on the grounds of apparent complexity (it's another preferential system, after all). People seem to like the principle of electoral reform but recoil against the detail, and I strongly suspect that's not unique to AV. The public will only overcome their fears of an alien-sounding system when they see how simple it is in practice, which of course is too late for the purposes of a referendum. That's why any Yes campaign (regardless of the proposed new system) is always likely to focus on broad-brush principles of fairer votes rather than nuts-and-bolts details.
ReplyDelete"I will be voting “no” simply because it has as many problems as FPTP and I suspect a “yes “ victory will put STV to bed for a generation while we all wait to see how AV works in practice."
To be perfectly honest, that used to be my worry and I think I wrote about it here, but the more I've thought about it I've come to the opposite conclusion. A No vote would come to be perceived as an overwhelming victory for FPTP - electoral reformers would be told "if you can't even get this minor reform through, why waste your breath arguing for PR?". I'm very glad the Yes campaign have adopted the name "Yes to Fairer Votes", clearly suggesting that AV represents progress, not an ideal.
I don't see your first point as a problem here in Scotland where we already use STV for local elections (as they do in NI). Reformers would be better served by holding out for that in local elections in the whole UK instead of moving to the unsatisfactory AV half-way house for Westminster now. That way STV would not need to be explained to people and the concern you raise would be obviated.
ReplyDeleteAs I say you still have to give AV a chance to work or not before moving once more to STV and that means a protracted wait. One that need not be the case if we keep FPTP.
Whichever side wins it will prove to the detriment of STV, that is why I would rather not be having this referendum at all. Its a fudge and a bad one at that! It diverts attention from a proper discussion of proportional voting reform.
These ads are in the poorest possible taste and should be banned.
ReplyDeleteThe inference is that if we do not support AV they will produce new cardiac facilities all over the UK.
This is patently a lie.
I agree with your analysis James (although perhaps the last of your examples is a little farfetched?). I should be surprised that Cameron, as an ad man, is associating himself with such offensive rubbish, but strangely I am not.
If this ad goes out in England, I would suggest that what she doesn't need is a government determined to deliver a de facto private health service based on costs rather than effective treatment. I would suggest she needs her GP to be a doctor and not an accountant.
"Reformers would be better served by holding out for that in local elections in the whole UK instead of moving to the unsatisfactory AV half-way house for Westminster now."
ReplyDeleteI always felt that the Lib Dems were selling out (and making a stupid strategic error) by going into coalition with either Tory or Labour without at least some sort of minimal progress on PR, but unfortunately for us all they did, and we now have to choose which course of action in this referendum will either further the cause of PR, or at a minimum help to keep it alive. I certainly can't see a perceived "ringing endorsement for FPTP" helping the chances of STV for local government in England, especially as both the Tories and Labour have every selfish incentive not to grant it. (And I also think AV is a better system than FPTP on it own merits.)
Yes, Tris, the Holocaust example was slightly far-fetched, although probably no more so than the idea that voting No in this referendum will make a new cardiac facility any more likely!
"If this ad goes out in England, I would suggest that what she doesn't need is a government determined to deliver a de facto private health service based on costs rather than effective treatment. I would suggest she needs her GP to be a doctor and not an accountant."
I agree entirely.
I don't think an endorsment of AV would advance the cause of PR any more than one for FPTP. It's a case of dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. I just think that an endorsment of FPTP for now would be easier to recover from in the short to medium term than a shift to AV. At five years an election would would really need to give AV 25 years plus to bed in. Whereas I think we would not need to do that if we stick with FPTP, reform coulod be on the agenda again within five years say.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Lib Dems sold out for a poor second. One that their own Lord Jenkins described as being as bad if not worse than FPTP. If they had gone for AV+ on a 50/50 share I woud be voting "yes". I think the Lib Dems if they were going to fudge then they should have insisted on STV for local elections in England and Wales, possibly without a referendum (we did not have one in Scotland) and then we would not be in this invidious situation of having to choose between two unsatisfactory systems.
"At five years an election would would really need to give AV 25 years plus to bed in."
ReplyDeleteI must say I think the "need to bed in" notion is a red herring. Of course that will be the mantra of opponents of further reform if AV goes through, but it's a hell of a lot less compelling an argument than "FPTP has the clear backing of the British people, the issue is now dead for a generation".
"One that their own Lord Jenkins described as being as bad if not worse than FPTP. If they had gone for AV+ on a 50/50 share I woud be voting "yes"."
But who was Jenkins batting for in 1998? He also dismissed STV out of hand, and didn't seem to think maximising proportionality was much of a priority either. He was actually much closer to Blair than to his own party by then, which is probably why - despite his stated distaste for AV - he came up with a system that was (from memory) something like 85% AV. It was certainly a bit more proportional than pure AV, but it would still have produced majority governments more often than not.
As I understand it he dismissed STV because of the, to my mind misguided need to maintain the constituency link for MPs and, therefore, objected to the multi-member aspect of STV so necessary in order to maximise choice not only between parties but between candidates within one party. That I imagine is his legacy of actually being an MP. Think about it though, how often does a constituent go to see their MP regarding a matter that is actually their MPs remit and not say the local councillor or MSP? And how often does an MP actually put the interests of his local constituents before the interests of the government or party of which he or she is a member? Very, very rarely due to the way our executive is elected at the same time as our legislature and the strong party hierarchy we have allowed to develop and the system of whipping that they use. AV+ was a compromise between the two allowing one member one constituency while at the same time allowing an element of proportionality. Certainly better than simple AV where the third safest seats that have not changed hands since Queen Victoria was on the throne still wont.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was 75/25 by the way but I may very well be wrong. That is certainly not good enough and a 50/50 split would be most ideal to my mind.
I think we will have to agree to disagree over the bedding in aspect of AV as opposed to the endorsement for FPTP, but it seems we do agree that a generation could well pass whatever happens.