I’ve just caught up with Tim Montgomerie’s exhaustive and tremendously insightful account of the successful No to AV campaign. For those CoffeeHousers who haven’t yet had their fill of last
week’s referendum and its implications, I’d heartily recommend it.
Numerous points stand out, of which Paul Waugh has already highlighted one of the most vivid. But
here is another:
Which is to say, the argument that AV would cost more was the most successful to be ranged against it, even though it was frequently disputed. Not the voting system’s unpopularity around the world, nor its complexity, nor its subversion of “one person, one vote” — but cost.“Lesser individuals would have crumbled before Fleet Street’s pens but the battle-tested Labour figures in the No campaign and Cameron’s Political Secretary, Stephen Gilbert, gave [Matthew] Elliott the reassurance he needed to stay on course. They were right to do so. The cost arguments against AV moved voters more than any of the other 33 messages that were tested.”
This strikes me as significant. While it doesn’t necessarily mean that people are sceptical of public spending in itself, it does suggest that there’s a deep and widespread appreciation of the nation’s tight fiscal situation. The cost of AV is a pittance besides the £billions that are spent by the government more generally — and yet is it still regarded, by many, as a cost too far.
Eds Miliband and Balls ought to take note.
Comments