It's great to see Malc at Better Nation devote a post to the referendum in Wales today - it's received so little coverage in the "national" mainstream media that you'd be forgiven for not being aware that it's even taking place. On one point I'd quibble with Malc, though -
"To be clear, this isn’t a referendum to extend devolution or bestow more powers on the National Assembly for Wales. They already have the opportunity to get the powers which will be delivered in the event of a Yes vote in today’s referendum – they were bestowed on the NAW by the Government of Wales Act (2008).
This is more about speed of delivery – rather than having to apply to Westminster for individual powers in each of 20 fields specified in the Act using a lengthy process known as Legislative Competence Orders (LCOs)..."
To my mind, the vote plainly is about the extension of devolved powers. The whole point of having to apply for a power, surely, is that the application can be refused - or to put it another way, the power isn't actually 'bestowed' on the Assembly until an application is accepted.
Malc also reveals the entire lengthy preamble to today's referendum question, which includes this rather startling sentence -
"The Assembly cannot make laws on subject areas such as defence, tax or welfare benefits, whatever the result of this vote."
Which is as good as saying "you don't get to choose on such grown-up matters, so suck it up". Doubtless, though, there'll still be somebody brazen enough to claim a Yes vote today as a "vote against nationalism", just as Roy Hattersley did after the Scottish devolution referendum of 1997. Tell me, Roy - how exactly could I have gone about voting for independence in that referendum? A No vote? An abstention? How?
Still, in a way it's a pity that the AV referendum question won't be fronting up to its limitations in quite such a direct manner...
"At present, our voting system is not proportional. However you vote today, that will not change. Tough luck, baby."
Showing posts with label Roy Hattersley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roy Hattersley. Show all posts
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Friday, September 3, 2010
Why supporters of PR should probably hold their noses and campaign for a Yes to AV
Political Betting has begun a debate on the AV voting system, with two of the site's regular posters taking up each side of the argument. As I've mentioned before, I've gradually come round to the idea that I will probably vote Yes in the referendum, although if I do so it will be with absolutely no enthusiasm. And something may yet come along to change my mind - for instance, if I started to feel that there was a greater than 50% chance that a No would break the Con/Lib Dem coalition, that would give me considerable pause for thought. The democratic improvements offered by AV are so minor that they'd scarcely be worth passing up such a golden opportunity for. However, I don't find any of the arguments that 'Dyed in Some Wool' puts forward for a No vote at PB especially convincing. Perhaps that's because he merely focuses on trying to demolish the main reasons for thinking a Yes vote will make the voting system significantly better, and for the most part neglects to explain why a vote to retain first-past-the-post (which is exactly what a No vote will be) is in any way preferable. Let's take the points in turn :
"I want a more proportional system
AV is not proportional and will not lead to parliament reflecting the national vote..."
No, it won't. Nor will FPTP magically start to do so if we retain it by voting No in the referendum. As far as proportionality is concerned, neither FPTP or AV are even at the races - and honest Yes campaigners should be brave enough to admit that, and instead try to sell AV on the basis of its own modest virtues, not on a false prospectus of greater proportionality. But at the absolute most this is an argument for abstaining, not for actively voting to retain FPTP.
"Will democracy be better served by parties campaigning locally on ‘How To Ensure xxxx Does Not Get In?’"
But they already do exactly that. AV may not prevent Labour continuing to lie through their teeth in future about how 'only a vote for them can keep the Tories out', but what it will do is allow the long-suffering voter to point out to canvassers on the doorstep that the new voting system has at a stroke resolved all of those dilemmas - everyone will be free to vote honestly by giving their first preference to their favoured party, while still maximising the chances of keeping the Tories (or any other party) out by means of their lower preferences.
"My vote is a wasted vote
Under AV, anyone will have the ability to state secondary preferences, but if the party or candidate you wish to win does not secure 50% of the vote, then your vote is wasted in any case, if your secondary choice also fails to win then again your vote remains wasted."
This is all true, but the operative words are "does not secure 50%". Under FPTP, candidates often don't require anything like 50% to be elected, so by definition there will be significantly fewer wasted votes under AV than at present. It'll certainly fall far short of perfection on that score, but it's silly to pretend it doesn't represent an improvement.
"I hate the notion of the safe seat/I want to punish the individual MP
AV will not address this problem."
No, it won't. Neither will the retention of FPTP. Another argument for, at most, an abstention in the referendum. In fact, as far as punishing individual MPs is concerned, AV will at least increase the range of options available to the voters - as previously noted, they'll be able to simultaneously reward their favourite candidate and penalise their least favourite, whereas in many circumstances under FPTP they have to choose which is the greater priority.
"It is a step in the right direction
We should be wary here. If the referendum passes, the yes supporters will have nailed their colours to the mast and it is unlikely a further change to the system will be offered (and indeed should not be) until the electorate has seen and experienced AV for a few elections."
At last we get to the nub of the issue, and I have indeed been very concerned that AV will prove to be a cul-de-sac rather than a stepping-stone. The introduction of AV several decades ago certainly didn't pave the way for proportional representation in Australia - the system instead became utterly entrenched. However, we also have to look at this from the other way round - what will be the psychological impact of a No vote on the movement for any sort of electoral reform? Hard to say, but it could be a significant setback. So there are dangers for supporters of PR in either a Yes or a No vote, but ultimately we'll have to jump one way or the other (I presume nearly all of us would regard abstaining as a cop-out) without the assistance of a reliable crystal ball. I think the trick here is that reluctant supporters of AV in this referendum must push themselves to the forefront of the campaign, emphasise at every turn that they're campaigning for the least worst option on the ballot paper, and repeatedly make clear that they will regard a Yes vote as a mandate to seek further reform at the earliest opportunity.
The worst things of all that could happen are for PR supporters to absent themselves from the campaign altogether, or to participate in the campaign without emphasising the central importance of the ultimate aspiration of PR. Either course would allow supporters of majoritarian voting systems (whether AV or FPTP) to claim literally any outcome as a victory for their cause over PR. Indeed, I seem to recall certain unionist politicians (most notably Roy Hattersley) cynically trying to pull off exactly that trick after the 1997 devolution referendum. If a Yes vote was a "vote against independence", Roy, what exactly would a No vote have been?
"I want a more proportional system
AV is not proportional and will not lead to parliament reflecting the national vote..."
No, it won't. Nor will FPTP magically start to do so if we retain it by voting No in the referendum. As far as proportionality is concerned, neither FPTP or AV are even at the races - and honest Yes campaigners should be brave enough to admit that, and instead try to sell AV on the basis of its own modest virtues, not on a false prospectus of greater proportionality. But at the absolute most this is an argument for abstaining, not for actively voting to retain FPTP.
"Will democracy be better served by parties campaigning locally on ‘How To Ensure xxxx Does Not Get In?’"
But they already do exactly that. AV may not prevent Labour continuing to lie through their teeth in future about how 'only a vote for them can keep the Tories out', but what it will do is allow the long-suffering voter to point out to canvassers on the doorstep that the new voting system has at a stroke resolved all of those dilemmas - everyone will be free to vote honestly by giving their first preference to their favoured party, while still maximising the chances of keeping the Tories (or any other party) out by means of their lower preferences.
"My vote is a wasted vote
Under AV, anyone will have the ability to state secondary preferences, but if the party or candidate you wish to win does not secure 50% of the vote, then your vote is wasted in any case, if your secondary choice also fails to win then again your vote remains wasted."
This is all true, but the operative words are "does not secure 50%". Under FPTP, candidates often don't require anything like 50% to be elected, so by definition there will be significantly fewer wasted votes under AV than at present. It'll certainly fall far short of perfection on that score, but it's silly to pretend it doesn't represent an improvement.
"I hate the notion of the safe seat/I want to punish the individual MP
AV will not address this problem."
No, it won't. Neither will the retention of FPTP. Another argument for, at most, an abstention in the referendum. In fact, as far as punishing individual MPs is concerned, AV will at least increase the range of options available to the voters - as previously noted, they'll be able to simultaneously reward their favourite candidate and penalise their least favourite, whereas in many circumstances under FPTP they have to choose which is the greater priority.
"It is a step in the right direction
We should be wary here. If the referendum passes, the yes supporters will have nailed their colours to the mast and it is unlikely a further change to the system will be offered (and indeed should not be) until the electorate has seen and experienced AV for a few elections."
At last we get to the nub of the issue, and I have indeed been very concerned that AV will prove to be a cul-de-sac rather than a stepping-stone. The introduction of AV several decades ago certainly didn't pave the way for proportional representation in Australia - the system instead became utterly entrenched. However, we also have to look at this from the other way round - what will be the psychological impact of a No vote on the movement for any sort of electoral reform? Hard to say, but it could be a significant setback. So there are dangers for supporters of PR in either a Yes or a No vote, but ultimately we'll have to jump one way or the other (I presume nearly all of us would regard abstaining as a cop-out) without the assistance of a reliable crystal ball. I think the trick here is that reluctant supporters of AV in this referendum must push themselves to the forefront of the campaign, emphasise at every turn that they're campaigning for the least worst option on the ballot paper, and repeatedly make clear that they will regard a Yes vote as a mandate to seek further reform at the earliest opportunity.
The worst things of all that could happen are for PR supporters to absent themselves from the campaign altogether, or to participate in the campaign without emphasising the central importance of the ultimate aspiration of PR. Either course would allow supporters of majoritarian voting systems (whether AV or FPTP) to claim literally any outcome as a victory for their cause over PR. Indeed, I seem to recall certain unionist politicians (most notably Roy Hattersley) cynically trying to pull off exactly that trick after the 1997 devolution referendum. If a Yes vote was a "vote against independence", Roy, what exactly would a No vote have been?
Friday, March 27, 2009
Hattersley's consent principle
The case of a chef who was cleared yesterday of raping a severely drunk woman reminded of me of the edition of Question Time a year or two back when Roy Hattersley claimed it was self-evident that, once a woman had consumed a certain level of alcohol, any sex that took place was by definition rape - because no consent to sex could be meaningfully given. Without getting into the rights and wrongs of this particular case (and no-one can doubt the difficulties of obtaining a conviction even when a rape has genuinely occurred), Hattersley's proposition seemed to me to be a recipe for chaos, not to mention injustice on a mammoth scale. Taken literally, it would probably mean that rape has taken place within the majority of marriages in this country at some point or another - although in most cases the 'victims' would be somewhat surprised to learn of this. And there's another even more important point. Don't women sometimes have sex with severely drunken men? Why is sex with a drunk woman 'rape' and sex with a drunk man just...well, 'drunk sex'? And how should the law define sex between two equally drunk people - perfectly OK on the part of the woman, but rape on the part of the man?
Before anyone misunderstands me, if a relatively sober man takes advantage of a woman who is practically unconscious, that is clearly rape. But there does seem to be a very convenient double-standard creeping in here.
Before anyone misunderstands me, if a relatively sober man takes advantage of a woman who is practically unconscious, that is clearly rape. But there does seem to be a very convenient double-standard creeping in here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)