Cameron and Reid make case against change to AV

Rolling coverage of all the day’s political developments as they happen 11.37am: Cameron and Reid are taking questions now. Q: The no campaign has run a personal campaign against Nick Clegg. Since he’s your deputy prime minister, shouldn’t you stop that? Cameron says he does not run the no campaign. He is responsible for the Conservative campaign. He has been using positive arguments. He does not condone personal attacks on anyone. Q: Aren’t you scaremongering? No, says Cameron. He wants to have a “straightforward and reasonable discussion”. But there is a problem. Millions of people are not engaged in this debate. He asked a group of five people in his constituency about it at the end of last week. None of them had heard of the AV campaign. 11.25am: John Reid is speaking now. He says it is unusual to be sharing a stage with David Cameron. He and Cameron are both party people. But party politics is not an end in itself. Politics is about improving conditions for the people and, if politicians can work together in this cause, they should. Reid says some issues are so important they transcend party politics. Foremost among them is the right of the British people to decide their government — and to do so in a way that is fair and gives everyone an equal say. This is about defending the right of one person, one vote – a system that has been the foundation of our democracy for generations. A system that has been copied by democracies the world over. A system that gives exactly the same voting rights to every single person, irrespective of background. It is the British way, it is the fairest way, and it is the best way. It would be an outrage to try to change the voting system for tactical advantage. But that seems to be what is motivating the Lib Dems, he says. Losing parties should work harder to win the confidence of the electorate, not seek to change the system, he says. AV is wrong because it would lead to the votes of losing candidates counting for more than others. Reid quotes Churchill on AV, pointing out that Churchill was the most successful “Liberal cabinet minister”. Churchill described AV as the “stupidest” electoral system. First past the post may not be perfect, Reid says. But it is decisive and clear, and it treats every citizen fairly. The case for AV has been built on “a mountain of sand”. AV campaigners say it would make MPs work harder. But many MPs are already elected with the votes of more than 50% of their electorate. And he hasn’t seen any pro-AV MP admitting that they don’t work hard at the moment. The pro-AV campaign say it would stop MPs having a job for life. But MPs do not have a job for life now, as Michael Portillo and Lembit Opik discovered. In Australia, when AV was introduced, turnout out. As a result, the Australians had to make voting compulsory. AV won’t end tactical voting. In fact, it will enourage it, because the order in which candidates are ranked can make all the difference. AV is “complex, confusing and costly”. That is why almost every other country in the world has rejected it. Above all, it is not fair, it is not equal and it is not British. More than 200 Labour MPs and peers are opposed to AV, he says. 11.19am: Cameron is still speaking. He says a voting system should enable the people to get rid of the government. That’s what happened in 1997. He remembers seeing the removal vans outside Downing Street. And that was right. John Major’s government deserved to lose. Under first past the post, votes in the pollling booths can lead to a prime minister leaving Number 10 only a few hours later. Under AV, this would not necessarily happen. Governments could survive on life support. Gordon Brown may even have been allowed to stay on as prime minister. Cameron says, under first past the past, politicians are accountable for their promises. At the last election Cameron felt personally responsible for everything in the Conservative manifesto. But, under AV, politicians might put something in their manifesto that they know they can never deliver, because they know that under a coalition they will be able to blame another party for their failure to implement their policies. 11.16am: David Cameron and John Reid are speaking now at the No to AV event. Cameron says AV would be “a backward step for our country”. That’s why John and I are sharing this platform today. We’re part of a wide coalition of people, from across political parties and from none, people who have never been involved in political campaigns and seasoned campaigners, sportsmen and women, scientists and historians, young and olds, who have come together because we are united, agreed and absolutely adamant about one thing: Britain should say No to AV. Cameron is now reading the passage of his speech released in advance. (See 8.53am.) 11.01am: I’m dependent on the gods of 24-hour news this morning (it wasn’t possible to attend both events in person because of the timetable clash) and Sky and BBC News have both decided that they’ve had enough of the Yes to Fairer votes event. Still, we’ve had the highlights. What was significant was how tightly focused the arguments were. In the past the yes campaign have produced some rather extravagant, far-fetched claims about AV (such as the suggestion that it would make MPs work harder, or prevent a repeat of the expenses scandal). Miliband, Johnson and Cable were instead much more realistic. In fact, Johnson actually described AV as a “signficant, if small step forward”. The three speakers made relatively modest claims about AV. But they were credible than many of the assertions that we’ve heard in this debate so far. I’ll post some more quotes shortly. 10.53am: Vince Cable is speaking now. He says, if first past the post was used on Strictly Come Dancing, Ann Widdecombe would have won. Strictly shows that the public do understand run-off voting systems. Other organisations, like the Conservative party, use AV. In fact, if the Tories had used first past the post in their leadership election, Vince Cable would now be conducting his negotiations on immigration with a Conservative party led by David Davis. A system similar to AV is used to elect the London mayor. Boris Johnson did not complain about this, even though he is now arguing against AV. Cable says that under first past the post votes are wasted. When he was a Lib Dem candidate in York in the 1980s, people said they would not vote for him because it would be a wasted vote. Now, in his constituency, he tells Labour supporters that voting Labour would be a wasted vote. But this is wrong; it’s negative campaigning. Under AV, politicians would have to appeal to the supporters of other parties. Cable also dismisses the claim that AV would help extremists. The BNP may not be very bright, he says. But they are smart enough to oppose AV because they know it would not help them. 10.49am: Alan Johnson, the Labour former home secretary, is speaking at the Yes to Fairer Votes event now. This may be the first time he has spoken at a high-profile political event since he resigned as shadow chancellor. He says AV would be a significant, but small, step forward. In 1950, when he was born, 94% of MPs were elected with the support of more than 50% of the electorate, Johnson says. But at the last election that figure was down to 44%. Johnson says that the government is introducing the supplementary vote (a system similar to AV) for the election of police commissioners. First past the past should be left for the racetrack, he says. 10.46am: Ed Miliband is speaking at the Yes to Fairer Votes event now. He is repeating many of the points he made in his Indie article. (See 9.06am.) The arguments used against AV are “groundless”, he says. He singles out David Cameron’s argument that AV is too complicated. But it’s the system used to elect Conservative leaders, Miliband says. 10.35am: Here are the latest polling figures on the AV referendum. From ComRes for the Independent on Sunday (results weighted by likelihood to vote) Yes: 37% No: 43% Don’t know: 21% No lead: 6 points From YouGov for the Sunday Times (results weighted by likelihood to vote) (pdf) Yes: 40% No: 41% Don’t know: 17% No lead: 1 point From YouGov for the Sunday Times (results not weighted by likelihood to vote) (pdf) Yes: 35% No: 38% Don’t know: 21% No lead: 3 points 10.17am: Ed Miliband is arguing today that people should vote in the referendum on AV according to how they feel about electoral reform, not from party political reasons. (See 9.06am.) But if you’re a Labour supporter and you’re not entirely convinced, do read Sunder Katwala’s post at LabourList. He suggests that George Osborne would be the real beneficiary of a no vote. Remember, George Osborne is not just chancellor but Tory election strategist too – and a No vote on AV is a crucial part of his plan for a majority in 2015. An argument could be made that Osborne is in some ways already the real leader of the Conservative party. He is certainly the prominent Tory who is in charge of the “Campaign for a Tory majority government”, since the coalition-friendly David Cameron must focuses attention as Prime Minister on keeping Nick Clegg happy and the more anxious LibDems onside … For Osborne, keeping the current electoral system forms an important part of this plan. So he has stepped up to the plate in the campaign, though constitutional issues are not usually a major focus for a chancellor of the exchequer, particularly when his day job might be thought rather pressing in current conditions. 10.05am: The yes campaign has “lost the plot in its approach over the last few months”, according to Sacha Deshmukh, a PR executive writing for Total Politics. Lots of prominent places for Westminster insiders; a nice smattering of the usual (boring) B-grade celebs who bang on about politics between filming reality shows, and ads in comfortable shades of pastels that look like every second Department of Health campaign or those posters the council puts on bus shelters up to tell you which day to put out your recycling. In fact, it seems that ‘Yes’ took its campaign template from that other rip-roaringly successful effort, Britain in Europe. You remember that don’t you? A massively over-funded campaign that saw the chances of Britain ever adopting the Euro diminish for every word it said. 9.56am: You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here. And all the politics stories filed yesterday, including some in today’s paper, are here. As for the rest of the papers, here are some articles worth noting. • Oliver Duff and David Singleton in the Independent saying the Liberal Democrats are offering donors face-to-face meetings with ministers, including Nick Clegg, if they pay £25,000 a year. The cash-strapped party has launched a club offering privileged access to the Deputy Prime Minister and senior Liberal Democrats. The Leaders’ Forum will be restricted to an elite of 50 individuals who will be invited to “exclusive dinners” and debates with frontbenchers in return for an annual £25,000 donation, payable into the party’s Royal Bank of Scotland account. They are promised “unrivalled networking opportunities”. • David Wighton in the Times (paywall) says the government’s decision to consider changes to the health bill has made contractors worry about its commitment to getting the private sector involved in the provision of public services generally. The government’s pause, and probable retreat, over the NHS reforms threatens to limit a huge potential opportunity for the private sector in the health service. And companies fear the setback over health may herald a broader slowdown in the shift of work to private companies. “You have to wonder whether they will push ahead as aggressively in other areas now,” says one chief executive. “The private sector seems to be a dirty word again.” Others point to the multiple postponements of the White Paper on public service reform, which is now not due until after next month’s local elections. “It doesn’t exactly instil confidence,” says one adviser to private contractors. Andrew Haldenby, director of Reform, the think-tank, believes companies are right to be nervous. “The manner of the retreat on the health reforms has caused collateral damage to the rest of the programme,” he says. “It will be impossible for ministers to argue against private sector involvement in one service while demanding it in others.” • David Millard and Thomas Harding in the Daily Telegraph say government departments have been posting secret documents online. The Ministry of Defence, the Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government have published sensitive documents online, but then failed to properly “redact” classified information. As a result, information that is supposed to be hidden from public view can be read by anyone with access to a computer. The Daily Telegraph discovered the security breaches yesterday after the Ministry of Defence admitted that secrets about Britain’s nuclear submarines were obtainable from a government report online. 9.51am: Britain is giving “significant” support to an organisation evacuating foreign workers from the besieged Libyan town of Misrata, Andrew Mitchell, the international development secretary told the Today programme this morning. Here’s the quote, from PoliticsHome. Britain will give significant further humanitarian support to move all 5,000 of these workers out of Misrata by boat through the International Organisation of Migration, back to Egypt. Many of them are Egyptian, some are Bangladeshi. We’re going to move all of them out as soon as we can. 9.06am: Ed Miliband hasn’t released extracts from his speech in advance. But we have a fairly good idea as to what he will say because he’s written an article on the subject for the Independent. Here are his key arguments. • Miliband says the AV campaign, like most political contests, is about hope versus fear. The hopes that a Yes vote can bring better politics and the fears being peddled by the Conservatives who are spearheading the No campaign. • He says politics needs to change. Our politics needs change: the reputation of politics is at an all-time low, turnout at general elections has been declining and many people feel disconnected and alienated from Westminster. • He says the alternative vote “isn’t a panacea” and isn’t perfect. • But AV will make politicians more accountable and more willing to reach out to members of other parties, he says. It will make politicians more accountable, as every MP will have to seek out more than 50 per cent of the vote … The current system of first-past-the-post entrenches a way of doing things that we must try to change. There is no motivation under this system for parties to go into elections pretending anything other than that they hate each other equally. No reason to find points of common ground; just to disagree. To secure a majority of votes under AV, candidates will need to be more honest about points of agreement. So a Yes vote is a vote for hope for a better politics; more accountable, fairer with a changed political culture. • He dismisses claims that AV will lead to more coalition government. “The evidence is that every election since 1945 that has resulted in a majority government would have done so under AV,” he says. • He dismisses claims that AV is too complicated. David Cameron says the system is too complicated, as if putting 1,2,3 on a ballot paper is going to confuse people. • He urges voters not to use the AV referendum to punish parties or politicians. Let me say clearly: most people have an opportunity to demonstrate their anger with the Tories and the Liberal Democrats in the local elections in England or those for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. I hope they do so by voting Labour. But the referendum is something else. It is not a referendum on Nick Clegg nor David Cameron. It is a referendum on AV. 8.53am: Some extracts from David Cameron’s anti-AV speech this morning have already been released in advance. Here are some extracts. • Cameron says AV would be “wrong for Britain”. It is obscure, unfair and expensive. It will mean that people who come third in elections can end up winning. It will make our politics less accountable and it would be a backward step for our country. • He says he is opposed to AV as much from gut instinct as from rational argument. Too often debates about AV are less like political arguments, and more like scientific discussions, where people get lost in a language of proportionality and preferences, probabilities and possibilities. Of course, some of these things are important. But for me, politics shouldn’t be some mind-bending exercise. It’s about what you feel in your gut – about the values you hold dear and the beliefs you instinctively have. And I just feel it, in my gut, that AV is wrong. • He says AV would take power away from the people. He is arguing this on the basis that AV would lead to more coalition government, which would result in the government’s legislative programme being decided in behind-closed-doors coalition negotiations. First, I believe power should lie with the people. But AV would take a lot of that power away. Second, I believe there should be real accountability between the pledges politicians put in their manifestos and the action they take in government. But AV would damage that chain of accountability. • He says AV would undermine the principle of one person, one vote. And third, I believe in the principle of one person, one vote. But AV will mean the votes of some people get counted more than others. • He says AV would damage Britain’s democracy permanently. The biggest danger right now is that Britain sleepwalks into this second-rate system, waking up on May 6th with a voting system that damages our democracy permanently. We must not let that happen. 8.41am: Up to now the alternative vote campaign hasn’t exactly enthralled the nation, but today things are livening up, with t he yes and the no campaign holding high-profile events this morning at almost exactly the same time. At 10.50am Ed Miliband , the Labour leader, is giving a speech at a Yes to Fairer Votes meeting also attended by Vince Cable , the business secretary, Billy Hayes , the leader of the CWU postal workers union and Darren Johnson , a Green party member of the London assembly. The yes campaign are also promising to publish “major new research showing what the alternative vote might mean for Britain”. Shortly afterwards David Cameron will be speaking at a No to AV event where he will share a platform with John Reid , the former Labour home secretary. For reasons I explained last week , so far the quality of public debate in the AV campaign has generally been dire. With luck, Cameron, Miliband et al today may actually raise the tone. Otherwise, it’s looking quiet. But as usual I’ll be covering all the breaking political news, as well as looking at the papers and bringing you the best politics from the web. I’ll post a lunchtime summary at around 1pm, and an afternoon one at about 4pm. Andrew Sparrow guardian.co.uk

Posted by on April 18, 2011. Filed under News, Politics, World News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.