The AV referendum just got interesting
Posted on August 8, 2010It’s brilliant news that Matthew Elliott is to be heading up the No 2 AV campaign for next year’s referendum. His success in turning the idea of the TaxPayers’ Alliance into a forceful, successful reality in just 6 years is testament to his abilities.
Having worked alongside Matthew as the TPA’s Campaign Director for over two and a half years, perhaps more than most I’ve seen his grim and tireless commitment to win – once he’s grabbed an issue he doesn’t let go.
This is a sign of the strategic gaps between the Yes and No camps that are going to become wider and wider over the next few months.
Any campaign Matthew runs is always going to be from outside the beltway, focusing on real world issues and engaging real people. He is under no illusion that the public are interested in or excited by philosophical or technical arguments per se – this is why the TPA’s work communicates true libertarian principles, but with newsworthy hooks that mean they actually make it into the papers and get talked about in the pub.
An Elliott No campaign will therefore inevitably be a campaign founded on the practical problems with AV, painting the proposed changes as a self-indulgent and self-interested frippery by politicians that will come at the expense of the people.
By contrast, I cannot see how the Yes campaign can do anything other than end up talking about the boring technicalities of their proposals. They’ll undoubtedly try to wave a flag with “Fair Votes” written on it, but I suspect they’ll swiftly get bogged down in the type of geeky detail that will bore the public and serve to confirm the No campaign’s charge that their plans are irrelevant to real punters.
Whether these predictions are true will be largely decided in the next few weeks as the Yes and No sides recruit their teams.
The Yes crew so far seem to be having trouble actually convincing people to work for their campaign – the only identified person involved is Peter Facey of Unlock Democracy. Peter is a nice guy but just like AV itself, he and his organisation are almost entirely anonymous – largely because their pitch is entirely about the geeky, technical details of electoral eform. The Yes side actually need to get some decent operators involved if they are to stand a snowball in hell’s chance at the polls.
The No campaign also has some crucial recruiting to do. Whilst there are already encouraging reports that James Frayne – my predecessor-but-one at the TPA, and a mastermind of the successful anti-politician No Campaign against the North East Regional Assembly – is involved, they are still light in terms of lefty representation.
As Iain Dale has pointed out, getting the Unions, the Labour Party and the crucial pro-PR, anti-AV lobby on board is going to be really important. Matthew’s low-tax victories with the TPA may alienate rather than encourage some of them, so a prominent left winger in a major, meaningful role must be appointed soon.
I love a good referendum scrap, fighting toe-to-toe about one, big issue without any guff getting in the way, but then I’m a political geek. It did worry me a bit that AV is such an obscure, irrelevant proposal that this battle might be so boring it might put the public off referenda entirely. With Matthew Elliott steering the No campaign, this clash has just got a lot more explosive.
You can sign up to the No 2 AV campaign here.
Tags: AV, Diret Democracy, Electoral Reform, James Frayne, Matthew Elliott, Peter Facey, Referendum, TaxPayers' Alliance, Unlock Democracy
Categories: Politics
FPTP vs AV is really, really simple. Matthew Elliott will rapidly run out fo things to say, and having taken such a party political stance on this will have no credibility to go back to TPA.
FPTP = What flavour Ice Cream do you want? – If it isn’t available you’ll get whatever flavour your given.
AV = What flavour Ice Cream do you want? – If it isn’t available what flavour do you want instead?
People who are scared of hung parliaments are scared of PR, but as is endlessly pointed out AV is not PR – so it doesn’t raise the risk of hung parliaments!
As far as complexity goes – marking acceptible candidates in order is no great challenge. This compares with FPTP where one often has to make all sorts of guesses who best to vote for to avoid ‘unacceptable’ candidates – rather than just selecting your preferred candidate.
Conservatives and Labour most like FPTP because they are most likely beneficiaries of tactical votes – and the more parties there are, the more important ‘tactical votes’ are to these parties.
A handy by-product of AV is that nationally people first preference votes will be a full an honest representation of the peoples support for the various parties. And should PR come to be considered desirable the relative number of first preferences gives proportions that each party should command.
23.08.2010 15:47
I am undecided. We have somehow ended up with a system locally and nationaly where our politicians work for the party not the people. Towing the party line stifles disent and proper debate. If AV dilutes the all powerful main parties I would be in favour otherwise we must find another way to do this.
23.08.2010 17:03
Firstly, I’d be very interested in hearing the arguments against AV. I’ve come up with a few but I’m in favour of the idea* so I’m probably not the best person to do so. Reading the press release on the linked website I’m none the wiser.
One point in that release I would particularly take issue with is the statement “I feel very strongly that the ‘Alternative Vote’ system would make politicians less accountable”. Under the current system it is very difficult to get rid of an MP if they still have the support of their party, particularly as any independent with similar policies would often only act to let another party in (if they achieve anything). Under AV the candidate will need the support of the majority of those voters left in an election. It is therefore much easier to make a strong vote against a particular candidate.
The big problem I can see for the ‘No’ campaign is one implied in your post, many people don’t care that much. Those that do are probably people in favour of political reform. The last time I looked at the referendum bill it didn’t require any sort of quorum. This presumably will change, and the level this is set at will probably be the greatest factor in determining the outcome.
*I should point out that I am very anti-PR however.
23.08.2010 18:23
The Australian election has been a timely reminder that AV simply does not give the benefits claimed. The Greens polled 11.4% of the vote so far, but have won just one seat – 0.68% of seats.
24.08.2010 15:45