David Aaronovitch's column today is excellent. He makes a case for David Cameron coming out and supporting the switch to the Alternative Vote. The key bit:
The pessimism that Conservatives invariably express about their fortunes under electoral reform is based on a particular assumption about the British electorate — an assumption that belies their constant invocation of “the great ignored” or the silent majority. The assumption is that there is a natural majority for the Centre Centre Left in Britain, a majority that only the division of the two centre-left parties within the first-past-the-post system neutralises. So the current system operates (in Tory eyes) as a perpetual pro-Tory gerrymander.
I don’t think this is true, and I never really have. There have, over the years, been as many Lib Dem voters willing to give the Conservatives their second preferences as Labour. And after the experience of coalition, that tendency could be strengthened. If Mr Cameron is bold, then he crushes the notion that the default British political position is centre-left, and establishes that a centre-right orientation and combination of interests can be more natural for Britain. He does for Conservatism what Tony Blair wanted to do, but couldn’t, for new Labour.
Good point! Not least because it's not a million miles from an argument I made back in May:Of course a “yes” wasn’t in the manifesto and isn’t a long-term Tory policy. But these days, what is?
Previously many pundits - and politicians - had assumed that the Labour-Liberal Democrat arrangement was the obvious fit. But now the Tories have first mover advantage and can overturn that presumption. Assuming, again, the coalition holds, it will be vastly easier to form a Tory-Liberal alliance in the future than it would have been to come to such an arrangement had the Lib Dems already become accustomed to sharing power with Labour. That really could have been a nightmare scenario for the Conservative party - especially if future parliaments were elected using the Alternative Vote.
Now, however, it is the Conservatives who have that advantage. I understand that there are ministers close to Cameron who are prepared to make it quite clear that no view has been taken on campaigning against the Lib Dems in 2015. In other words, there are some Tories prepared to at least war-game the notion of campaigning on a coalition ticket in five years time. The significance is that this is not being ruled out immediately. And from this one can construct a Tory case for embracing the Alternative Vote...
This may be thought to be getting ahead of ourselves but, actually, it's simply sensible to imagine these things. Again, exploiting first mover advantage Cameron has the opportunity to flip British politics on its head, making a Tory-Liberal alliance the "natural" or default presumption when all other matters remain equal.
I think that some Tories also view matters in this fashion and there are certainly some on the left who fear just this sort of thing actually happening. And if you work off the useful presumption that, in terms of politics, anything that discombobulates the opposition is worth considering then this fear alone might concentrate Tory minds.This may not seem a great prize to some but, actually, it's the difference between spending more time in government than on the opposition benches or, you know, not.
Furthermore, if a referendum on AV was successful it actually makes the next election simpler, not more complicated. AV would allow the coalition to urge voters to vote the coalition 1, 2 across the country without compromising their principles (or prejudices!) in any way.
Again, you might think it cynical to suggest that a government's first duty is to secure its re-election but there's a place for cynicism in politics. For the Conservatives, that means keeping Nick Clegg away from Labour come what may. Which means that there's an excellent case for some kind of pre-election arrangement confirming that the coalition seeks re-election as a coalition, package deal.
Under FPTP this would be more awkward than it would be under AV. I can't see the parties dividing up the country and running just one candidate per constituency so a deal will require some nodding and winking about the strenuousness of local campaigning. In Labour-Lib Dem seats, for instance, the Tory election effort might be considered rather feeble. And so on.
In any case, as Aaronovitch points out, if an AV referendum is defeated, the conseuqnces for the coalition could be severe. Not just in terms of the impact on this parliament but because of what might happen after the next election. It's certainly possible that if the Tories help kill AV then Clegg will find it easier to do a deal with Labour in 2015.
Clearly the parliamentary arithmatic may make such concerns moot. But what if it doesn't? This being so, don't be surprised if senior Tory ministers end up campaigning for a Yes vote in an AV ballot.
Filed under: Cameron (227 more articles) , Clegg (61 more articles) , ConLib (132 more articles) , Electoral reform (91 more articles) , Lib Dems (101 more articles) , Tories (273 more articles)
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (4)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
1 The unions versus the Department for Education — continued - Peter Hoskin
2 Cameron can no longer laugh off Ed - James Forsyth
3 Why reason doesn’t apply to the Eurozone - Fraser Nelson
4 The unions' lazy opposition to schools reform - Peter Hoskin
1 Cameron can no longer laugh off Ed - James Forsyth (65)
2 Let's get real about the fiscal situation - John Platts-Mills (51)
3 Gatwick competes in the disgrace Olympics - Fraser Nelson (42)
4 The need for a coalition attitude to growth - James Forsyth (42)
5 The 301 Group purge the 1922 committee - James Forsyth (41)
Andrew Sullivan
Ben Smith
Charles Crawford
Chris Dillow
Claudia Massie
Dan Drezner
Daniel Larison
Dave Weigel
Ezra Klein
French Politics
Global Guerrilas (John Robb)
Henry Porter
James Fallows
Julian Sanchez
Kerry Howley
Kevin Drum
League of Ordinary Gentlemen
Marc Ambinder
Matt Zeitlin
Matthew Yglesias
Megan McArdle
More than Mind Games
Mr Eugenides
Norm Geras
Our Kingdom
Outside the Beltway
Radley Balko
Reason: Hit&Run
Rod Dreher
Samizdata
Scottish Unionist
SNP Tactical Voting
The American Scene
The Plank
Tim Worstall
Toby Harnden
Will Wilkinson
Charlotte Gore
Iain Martin
Hopi Sen
Liberal Vision
Left Back in the Changing Room
1,700 Unusual Christmas Presents Request Catalogue 01935 815 195 Quote SPEC10 for 10% discount www.presentfinder.co.uk
Pimilco based Florist with online ordering Web: www.olivebranch.net Tel: 020 7630 1868 Fax: 020 7233 8844
62 Shore Road, Warsash, Southampton, SO31 9FT Telephone: 01489 578867 Web site: www.ruffs.co.uk
Apollo Magazine | Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2012 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
ukipliverpool.org
July 1st, 2010 1:58pm Report this commentIn Australia, the only country with AV, there are only two parties. Labour and the Liberals. The same setup will occur in the UK.
(see http://ukipliverpool.org and the article on AV)
Conservatives might think that AV would have removed the effect of 'thier votes' going to smaller parties which had denied them the election. But longer term, like smaller parties, under AV, they also would not survive as a Party, their base is too small. Rather than continue to expand the voter base under Howard with traditional Tory mainstays of Immigration, Referendum on the EU, and fairness for the working man, Cameron abandoned this approach in 2005, turned the party towards the mythical centre ground (as if it would prove more popular??).
It is astonishing to witness the actual death of the Conservative party as a distinct party of principle, after hundreds of years - a death inflicted by itself.
The Conservatives will be sucked into the black hole of a AV Lib-Con Pack party.
David Gould
July 2nd, 2010 12:32am Report this commentWhilst AV certainly isn't fair to 3rd parties (never mind 4th etc parties), it's a lot fairer to them than FPTP.
The LibDems have survived under FPTP and are likely to flourish under AV. Most estimates suggest they'll nearly double their number of seats.
Tom Round
July 2nd, 2010 5:29am Report this comment> "In Australia, the only country with AV, there are only two parties. Labour and the Liberals"
My goodness. How many errors can one fit into just 16 words? First - Papua New Guinea and Fiji (and, for presidential elections, Ireland and Sri Lanka) use AV, as have some Canadian provinces and US cities. Secondly - never heard of the National (nee Country) Party? The Greens? The Australian Democrats? The DLP? Independents like Karlene Maywald, Clover Moore, Liz Cunningham and Craig Ingram, all of whom got to decide which premier would govern?
Richard Lung
July 2nd, 2010 7:30am Report this commentComments here follow the usual tack of party advantage: that is not democracy but engineered oligarchy.
J S Mill MP made the classic case for electoral democracy (proportional representation as personal representation, nowadays called single transferable vote) 150 years ago, a tradition that has survived and flourished to this day in this country, because it is based on truly democratic electoral reform, which is therefore the only defensible reform.
You will find that you cannot argue a referendum debate on a system like AV or any other fatally flawed system, on the basis of it being to the advantage of one party or another.
Back to top