Dan Snow goes for AV

Historian and television presenter Dan Snow has weighed into the the AV / FPTP debate with two very useful videos... One video provides a convenient explanation of how AV works by looking at preferences amongst a group of friends for going for coffee or going to a pub:



The other video provides a valuable historical perspective on the value of the Alternative Vote system:



Take a look!

Vote for AV to end Tory dominance – Vince Cable

The Guardian brings news of Vince Cable's appeal to progressive voters:

Vince Cable today calls for a "progressive majority" of Labour and Liberal Democrat voters to join together and say yes to the alternative vote to prevent the next century being like the last one and "dominated by Tory governments".

In a marked escalation of Lib Dem language about their coalition partners in the runup to the AV referendum on 5 May, and talking for the first time about the effect a yes vote could have on the next general election, the business secretary explicitly raises the prospect of an anti-Conservative coalition victory in an effort to boost the Yes to AV campaign and shore up Lib Dem support in the local elections.

Cable says the moment has come to end the dynamic in which votes for Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens are split. Appealing to Labour voters more clearly than any of his Lib Dem colleagues, he says the "progressive majority" accounts for 50% of the electorate but their votes are shared between the three parties, which has allowed the Tories to win overall majorities on a minority of the vote.

If the supporters of all three parties can be persuaded to vote yes in the referendum the next election would be run under AV, and supporters of one party could vote for the others as second and third preferences, the business secretary points out.

The article goes on to describe Mr Cable's dissatisfaction with David Cameron's handling of AV smears and several (not so) veiled Tory attacks on the LibDem leader, Nick Clegg:

"I was surprised and alarmed to see a leaflet from the No to AV campaign put through my door with a brutal personal attack on Nick Clegg for his having loyally supported coalition policies including difficult public spending cuts. The claims that he promised not to embark on tough economic policies are simply false. I find it difficult to reconcile this leaflet attacking coalition economic policy with the fact that Mr Cameron is personally leading the no campaign and the leaflet is produced by a leading Tory donor. He [Cameron] may not directly control what his supporters are up to. But he must make it clear that he doesn't condone and will endeavour to stop personal attacks on his deputy for loyally supporting coalition policy.

"To stand by and let this happen is dangerous and puts considerable strain on the coalition. I haven't really reacted to this spat. But that leaflet was absolutely dreadful. It does take it on to a different level." Senior Lib Dems believe a TNS poll published today gives them cause for hope after previous polls have suggested leads for the no campaign of as much as 16%. The new poll found that 34% of people oppose AV but 32% support it.

Johann Hari: If you get the X Factor you'll get AV

Former Lyonian and present-day commentator for The Independent newspaper, Johann Hari today imparts his own wisdom regarding the May 5 referendum for electoral reform:

Privacy law should be made by MPs, not judges, says PM

The Guardian has the story today - demarcating a novel, fraught area of separation between Parliament and the judiciary:

Prime minister 'uneasy' over superinjunctions and judges' role after high court prevents identification of sex scandal footballer

The prime minister has waded into the debate on the use of superinjunctions by the rich and famous to avoid allegations of scandal, declaring that parliament and not the courts should decide where the right to privacy begins.

David Cameron said the development of a privacy law by judges based on European rights made him feel "a little uneasy". His comments, made while touring a car factory in Luton, follow judgments in the high court this week that prevent the identification of a married Premier League footballer and someone who works in the entertainment industry, both of whom are said to have had extramarital affairs.

Cameron said: "I think there is a question here about privacy and the way our system works. What's happening here is that the judges are using the European convention on human rights to deliver a sort of privacy law without parliament saying so. … we do need to have a proper sit back and think: is this right, is this the right thing to happen? The judges are creating a sort of privacy law, whereas what ought to happen in a parliamentary democracy is parliament – which you elect and put there – should decide how much protection do we want for individuals and how much freedom of the press and the rest of it. So I am a little uneasy about what is happening."

He added: "It might be odd to hear it, but I don't really have the answer to this one, I need to do some more thinking about it. It is an odd situation if the judges are making the law rather than parliament."

Although superinjunctions refer strictly only to legal orders whose existence cannot even be reported, the term has been used more loosely to describe injunctions aimed at suppressing the identification of individuals who claim they are entitled to anonymity under "the right to respect for private and family life" incorporated in Article 8 of the European convention on human rights.

There is disagreement within the legal profession about whether there has been a significant increase in such injunctions, which have been granted in the past to victims of blackmail or, for example, in the case of the killers of James Bulger amid fears they would be at risk if identified.

Mark Stobbs, the Law Society's director of legal policy, said: "This is a new development and it is something which needs to be watched very closely. There is a huge debate between the right to privacy and the right to public knowledge. We support open justice and transparency as a basic principle, but there must be occasional cases where there is a public interest in privacy. You might get it sometimes in the context of terrorist trials where there are real national security implications."

But Cameron Doley, of the law firm Carter Ruck, which has obtained privacy orders for clients, doubted there had been an increase in their frequency over recent years.

"The newspapers have decided that the way to change policy is to shout about it from the rooftops," he said. "There's a lot to be said for a reasoned debate about it that won't be one-sided. But judges will still have to interpret the Human Rights Act."

One of the problems, he added, was that people comment about cases in which they had not seen the evidence, while the most widely reported cases were those where the courts ruled there was insufficient justification for maintaining an injunction – such as the one involving the England football captain, John Terry.

"We do use these injunctions occasionally but not with any more frequency than we did in previous years," Doley added. "They don't always work. The worst thing to do from a PR point of view is to try and get one and fail. The rich and famous can't pay their way out of scandal."

A committee established by the master of the rolls, Lord Neuberger, to examine the use of injunctions and super-injunctions to muzzle press reporting is due to report next month.

BBC News: House of Lords full, peers warn David Cameron

BBC News today has the story of "appointments gone mad":

David Cameron has been told by a cross-party group of senior peers that the House of Lords is "full" and he must stop creating new members.

The prime minister has created more peers more quickly than any of his post-war predecessors, having ennobled 117 people in less than a year. The House of Lords now has 792 members who are entitled to attend and vote. The peers warn that this number is "unsustainable" and is damaging the effectiveness of the Lords.

The warning comes in a report from the independent Constitution Unit at University College London and has been endorsed by 13 peers from all parties.

Read on: the report discusses the physical pressures of new appointments, as well as a perceived change in the ethos and culture of 'the other place'—suggestions for improvement in the current system are also made. As the report quietly points out:

A committee chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is expected to publish a draft bill on proposed reform of the Lords in the next few months but any changes agreed are unlikely to come into effect for some time.

Mumsnet: MPs lament long hours in Commons

The Observer this morning reports the findings of a recent poll run by Mumsnet, the influential UK internet website / pressure grouping... (reproduced below):

Nearly one in three MPs say they have considered quitting because of the pressure on their families caused by long working hours. Politicians complain that late-night votes and the strain of splitting their lives between constituencies and London places them under strain.

Despite efforts in recent years to reform House of Commons practices, a survey by the website Mumsnet shows nearly two thirds of MPs believe their jobs have had a negative impact on their family lives. More than 90% of the 101 MPs surveyed said that parliament was not family friendly – a figure indicating that steps such as the opening of a creche for the children of MPs and staff have not succeeded in rectifying the Commons work/life balance.

MPs regularly have to stay for late night sittings that go beyond 10pm. And last year a Cardiff Liberal Democrat MP complained it was "crazy" that she had to leave her baby with colleagues during votes in the House of Commons. Jenny Willott said she handed her 18-week-old son Toby "to the nearest MP" to comply with rules that allows only MPs into the division lobbies where votes are cast. The complaints are not new. A number of former MPs have cited the lack of time they are allowed to spend with their loved ones as a reason for their eventual abandonment of a life in parliamentary politics.One veteran MP said: "I never saw my children grow up and I'll regret that for the rest of my life." Another MP added: "I am newly elected and cannot see how I can keep this up for the next four years without damaging my family relationships."

Almost half of those MPs asked said they wanted to end late night voting. John Woodcock, the Labour MP for Barrow and Furness, said he had never considered giving up parliament but had grown concerned since being elected in May about the effect of the working practices at the Commons into MPs' lives at home. Woodcock, Labour's transport spokesman, who has a two-year-old daughter, Maisie, said: "It is a huge privilege to do the job and I'm working flat out at it. But it inevitably puts a strain on the family to live in two places through the week, spending half the week in the constituency and half the week in London."Speaking to colleagues, on top of that, the hours of the House of Commons for many people are not geared up to ease family existence for those who have their family in London during the week. Late night votes and meetings leaves them tired at the weekend and that has an effect on life at home."

Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour party, said she had long-contended that reforms were urgently necessary to make parliament more effective. "It is important that we allow MPs family lives because so much policy is centred around family," she said.

"I have for a long time said that MPs should be able to travel back from their constituencies on a Monday and start work earlier on a Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday so they can finish earlier on those days. I think that would make parliament a more family friendly and actually a more effective place."

Despite the concerns, 85% MPs have roundly rejected the idea of parliamentarians having job shares, an idea proposed by the newly elected Green MP Caroline Lucas.

Commenting on the survey findings, CEO and co-founder of Mumsnet, Justine Roberts, said: "Making a country or workplace family friendly relies on all of us helping to change the culture around us. If politicians want the country to be more family friendly they need to lead by example, and at the moment parliament falls far short of this. If we want legislation that reflects the needs of families, it seems fair we allow MPs to live as families.The country could waste a lot of talent if we give in to the viewpoint that parliament is no place for a parent with young kids."

Clearly, these findings are highly interesting when it comes to assessing the overall effectiviness of the representation function within the Commons (a common examination focus!) A significant number of potential family-oriented candidates—certainly many women in particular—must be put off running for election by these problems....

Apathy and anger dominate as AV decision looms

'A referendum? Really?' - Both camps struggle to convince voters of importance of 5 May poll – in town that would have had a different MP under AV

The Guardian today tells a tale of 'apathy and anger' in the run up to the national referendum on 5 May:

Paul Holmes surveys the celebrated crooked spire and historic market square in his former constituency of Chesterfield and shrugs. "It's almost certain," the former Liberal Democrat MP agrees. "But you can't tell with voters."

The British Election Study suggests it is a certainty. Under AV, the alternative voting system subject to a referendum on 5 May, the study says this Derbyshire constituency would have been one of 43 to elect a different MP. The seat's Labour incumbent, Toby Perkins, would have seen his perilously slim 549 majority wiped out by second and third preferences and Holmes, 54, a former Lib Dem party chairman and history teacher, would not be the ex-MP he is today.

He says: "Nearly two out of three votes were against Labour last year. But Labour won. And that's just ludicrous. The people defending first past the post [FPTP], I just don't know how they can. It's absolutely indefensible, excepting that turkeys don't vote for Christmas."

History acknowledges the part Chesterfield has played in past political upsets. The Cock and Pynot inn, now a museum two miles from the town centre at Old Whittington, was where parliamentarian conspirators plotted the fall of James II in favour of William III in the 1688 Glorious Revolution.

Holmes is hoping a similar zeal for change will galvanise local voters to put a cross in the yes box. To persuade them, he and other Lib Dem canvassers are pounding the constituency streets, pushing local election leaflets through 48,000 letterboxes along with literature explaining why AV is so important.

But his passion appears not to have translated to the people of a town that for more than a century prospered on the sweat of coalminers and toil of engineering and was largely Labour.

Now the pits are grassed over, housing and retail developments colonise old factory sites, and Chesterfield is reinventing itself with greater reliance on smaller businesses and technology. With the Lib Dems defending 38 seats to Labour's 10 on Chesterfield council at next month's elections, Holmes feels he can argue: "The social and economic profile is changing. It's no longer a Labour town." Except under FPTP.

An interesting article, especially from the point of view of (non)-participation amongst the voting public... The feature rounds up with a summary of seats that would have produced a different result under AV in the last general election:

Research in a British Election Study working paper from the University of Essex suggests that under AV 43 seats would have been won by a different party at the 2010 general election.

Lab to Con: Dudley North.

Lab to Lib Dem: Aberdeen South, Edinburgh North and Leith, Edinburgh South, Newport East, Swansea West, Ashfield, Birmingham Hall Green, Bristol South, Chesterfield, Durham City, Hull North, Islington South and Finsbury, Lewisham West and Penge, Newcastle upon Tyne North, Oldham East and Saddleworth, Oxford East, Rochdale, Sheffield Central, Streatham.

Con to Lab: Aberconwy, Cardiff North, Brentford and Isleworth, Broxtowe, Hendon, Hove, Lancaster and Fleetwood, Sherwood, Stockton South, Warrington South.

Con to Lib Dem: Montgomeryshire, Bristol North West, Camborne and Redruth, Colne Valley, Harrogate and Knaresborough, Newton Abbot, Oxford West and Abingdon, Reading East, St Albans, Truro and Falmouth, Watford, Weston-super-Mare, York Outer.

New Statesman: A way to make MPs work for voters and not party

Zac Goldsmith, Conservative MP for Richmond, makes the case for recalling MPs (as well as several other suggestions for a more smoothly-functioning Commons) in today's New Statesman:

.... if we want to counter the inability (or unwillingness) of parliament to scrutinise the executive, we need something bolder. A very significant start would be for the coalition partners to honour a pre-election promise made by all of the then party leaders. Following the expenses scandal, each of the leaders made a promise to allow constituents to "recall" their representative between elections. That pledge has, in effect, been scrapped.

True recall, indeed true democracy, allows people to remove their representative if most constituents have lost confidence in him or her, for whatever reason. It is a right that should exist for voters at every level, from councillor to MP. This is not a new idea. There have been failed recall attempts in California, including one against Ronald Reagan in 1968. However, in 2003, voters successfully recalled the sitting governor, Gray Davis, and replaced him at a new election with Arnold Schwarzenegger.

That couldn't be further from where we are today in Britain. Under the current rules, a new MP could theoretically move to another country for five years and leave constituency work to a caseworker. Local voters would be lumbered with a useless representative until the next general election.
Most MPs occupy "safe" seats and are hard, if not impossible, to shift. The pressure they feel is from their party, not from the voters. Recall would keep even these MPs on their toes, because a member of one party could be replaced by another from the same party.

The coalition insists that it will still introduce a version of recall, but the small print makes it worse than useless. Instead of handing the decision to the voters, the government will pass it up to MPs on a parliamentary committee. Its members alone will decide if a member has behaved badly enough to be "recalled".

As the Localism Bill enters the report stage, I will team up with like-minded MPs to table an amendment to hold the coalition to its original promise. It can succeed, but only with pressure from voters around the country. ...

YES to AV campaign launches TV broadcast campaign

It's the YES to AV campaign's turn tonight to launch their TV broadcast campaign during prime time evening viewing—no sign of comedians, but certainly presenting a comedic approach to the status quo (with a serious point!):

NO to AV campaign launches TV broadcast campaign

The NO to AV campaign launched their TV broadcast campaign tonight during prime time evening viewing (embedded below)—the YES campaign will launch tomorrow. Seems both campaigns are keen to avoid the presence of actual politicians and rely instead on comedians:

Helen Grant, MP: The need for gender balance in politics

Helen Grant, elected Conservative MP for Maidstone and the Weald in the last General Election, speaks out in totalpolitics on the need for greater female representation within the House of Commons:

Here's an excerpt—but do make sure you read the whole opinion piece:

A healthy democracy should reflect the nation it purports to represent. On its most basic level, diversity in parliament must surely strive to mirror the fact that 51 per cent of the population female.

The effect of the individual as a role model can be profound. The more balanced our political landscape becomes, the more pronounced will be the positive effect of female political role models on the aspirations of others across our social strata.  Success breeds success and improvements in the lower echelons will inevitably exert vertical pressure on the system.

In this country and throughout most of the world women are, typically, the main homemakers and carers. An increase in female representation would undoubtedly lead to improvements in the understanding of the needs of families, and those for whom they care, resulting in better and more effective policy in this area.

Furthermore, I believe fundamentally that the family unit is one of the keystones of a healthy and stable society. The processes of Parliament are well known to be unfriendly to those MPs who have families. The changes imposed by the IPSA last year in terms of living accommodation and the related costs have exacerbated the problem to such a degree that family homemakers are being discriminated out of the Parliamentary system. An increase in female representation would help to counter this unhealthy trend immeasurably.

Women purportedly account for 80 per cent of consumer purchasing decisions in many countries. To make prudent consumer related policy requires female input if Parliament is to accurately reflect the needs of the public at large.

Daily Politics Alternative Vote Debate (yes, another one...!)

Andrew Neil hosted the BBC's Daily Politics Alternative Vote Debate with Charles Kennedy, Michael Howard, John Prescott and Tessa Jowell.

The 35-minute debate was originally broadcast on 6 April as the four politicians argued for and against the possible change. There will be a UK wide referendum on 5 May on the issue.

The link takes you through to the full video of the debate as four 'big beasts' of the parliamentary jungle (past and present) argue their case. Essential viewing for those (re)-studying the Elections topic in AS Unit 1.

Yes! Verdict at AV debate as Livingstone and Howard clash on voting reform

The Evening Standard Wednesday evening hosted a major debate regarding the upcoming May 5 Referendum on the use of the AV / FPTP voting systems - extensive coverage was given to this in the newspaper the following day...

The line-up was august: former London mayor Ken Livingstone and Cabinet minister Vince Cable argued for the YES to AV proposition, former Tory leader Michael Howard and former rower Martin Cross argued NO to AV.

The result on the night? : Broad support for the YES proposition. Of course, only the result on May 5 actually counts!

No 10 under Cameron: The three acts of the PM's leadership

Prime Ministerial biographer and commentator Anthony Seldon publishes a summary in today's Independent on Sunday of his thoughts regarding the "three acts" of David Cameron's leadership in 10 Downing Street:

He wanted to restore cabinet government and bring order to Labour 'anarchy'. But not everything has gone to plan

• (Heady first days: May 2010)
• Optimism: May to November 2010
• Transition: November 2010 to February 2011
• Beefed up: March 2011 onwards

A longer version of this article appears in the April issue of Parliamentary Brief. Do read it as an in-depth analysis of current Prime Ministerial leadership.

Anthony Seldon's latest book in his series on No 10 was 'Brown at 10' (Biteback, 2010). He is also co-author with Dennis Kavanagh of 'The Powers Behind the Prime Minister' (1999, HarperCollins).

Rawnsley: Adopting AV would be a very British revolution

Seasoned political commentatotr Andrew Rawnsley in this morning's Observer decides that AV would not produce a saintly Commons, but would make MPs more representative of their constituents... Amidst other points, Rawnsley starts by underlining the importance of the decision that the nation is about to make:

The referendum is only just beginning to impinge on the consciousness of the nation, but between the politicians the struggle is already intense. Good. With the caveat that it would be more dignified for both sides to eschew comparing each other with the Nazis, a hot debate on this question is exactly what we need. I'm perplexed by those commentators who have adopted a pose of lofty scorn towards the referendum, dismissing it with a sneer through a yawn. They proclaim that the public is not interested in the way we elect our governments. The most condescending even say we ought not to be troubling the poor little heads of the voters with a referendum at all. Really? This is a country that likes to think of itself as a pioneer of representative democracy. We are fond of the pride-swelling remark made by John Bright, in a speech in support of electoral reform in the 19th century, that: "England is the mother of all parliaments."

Yet the people of England, and the peoples of the other nations of the UK, have never been offered any opportunity to set the basic rules of our democracy. This is the first time that the people have been given a say about how we elect members of parliament. If there is a more important subject for a referendum than that, I can't think of it.

Rawnsley is clearly pro-AV and musters several compelling arguments in defence of the idea (one follows):

Far from being hideously foreign, adopting AV would be a very British thing to do. It would not be a revolutionary break, but an evolutionary change. AV preserves the feature of the current system which has most merit – the direct link between an MP and a constituency – while addressing some of the most pernicious flaws of first past the post, such as the fact that two thirds of MPs were sent to parliament last May without the support of a majority of voters.

 His opinion of FPTP is clear:

.... there is a different electoral system in which some votes do count for a great deal more than others. There is an electoral system under which the complexion of the government is usually decided by a minority of voters in the minority of seats that are swing marginals. There is an electoral system which induces politicians to pander only to this minority of voters rather than encouraging them to reach out more widely. There is a system under which extremists, whom the majority would never want to see elected, can nevertheless win seats with minority support.

That system is called first past the post.

Do read the whole article as an excellent example of the pro-AV perspective.

BBC News: No politicians present Yes to AV Campaign Launch

BBC News reports on the launch today of the 'Yes to AV' Campaign—the article includes useful video interview with Eddie Izzard and Kriss Akabusi (take time to watch!):

The alternative vote system would make "rather average politicians" work harder to keep voters' support, former BBC director general Greg Dyke says. At a campaign launch for a Yes vote in May's referendum, he said MPs would be denied "jobs for life" by holding safe seats if the voting system changed. AV, where voters rank candidates rather than choose a single candidate, is also backed by comedian Eddie Izzard. ....

Voters across the UK are being asked on 5 May whether they want to keep the current "first-past-the-post system" for electing MPs to Westminster or change to AV. Those who oppose change say the current system generally leads to stable government and has historically reflected the will of the public in that unpopular governments have been voted out.

The Yes campaign, launched at an event in central London billed as "politician-free", says the alternative vote would ensure MPs aimed to secure at least 50% of the votes in their constituency. Mr Dyke, chairman of the British Film Institute, said those opposing the campaign were "old hack politicians" and had become "complacent" about their jobs. ....

Former independent MP Martin Bell, also a Yes supporter, said: "Let's not have our MPs elected by a minority and then going out and preaching democracy to the rest of the world. Let's get our own house in order."

Mr Izzard, the comedian and Labour supporter, said the Yes to AV campaign was "pushing for civilisation".

Yes supporter, former athlete Kriss Akabusi, who said he was a Conservative voter, said: "First past the post worked in the 19th and 20th Century, but it doesn't work now." He said the reasons given by the No campaign were "poppycock", such as the risk of a BNP candidate being elected to Parliament. But he said even if that was the case he would be "proud" to live in this country because he wanted to know what the people wanted.

At the event several people explained why they would be voting Yes in the referendum. Andy, a student at Swansea University, said: "I live in a safe seat. I know lots of people who are interested in politics but they don't vote because they know their vote won't count."

A spokesman for the No campaign said: "At a time when people are seeing their pay frozen and the cost of living rising, why should they listen to a bunch of celebrities who are backing a plan to spend £250m scrapping our fair voting system for one that gives some people more votes than others?"

Yes campaigners dispute the costs ascribed by the No campaign to introduce AV.