Comment: AV is for mature thinkers only
As Labour and the Tories continue their decline, we need a system which better reflects political thought in Britain.
By Ian Dunt
The old guard is scared. Even with most polls pointing to a win for the ‘no’ camp in the AV referendum, they are sweaty and unpredictable, like a frightened tiger in a cage. Tory and Labour backbenchers are slipping into incandescent rage at irregular intervals.
The attacks are getting harsher, the arguments more vicious and misleading. If you’re confused by how a technical discussion could prompt such fury, you should know that AV, in a modest but definite way, weakens the stranglehold of the main political parties on British politics.
For years now, Labour and the Conservatives have exercised a dominance in British politics which does not match their relevance. They have their supporters, of course – the loyal armies that travel dutifully to their conferences each year. And they have their core support, the dyed-in-wool Tory and Labour families who have been propping up safe seats for decades.
And yet, very few people in this country will now claim to always back one political party. Ask someone on the street which party they’re loyal towards and chances are they won’t support any of them, although they will vote for them on occasion.
The current system does not recognise them. It punishes broad political allegiance, complex political thought and diversity. It consolidates the strength of small, isolated groupings in parliament. If you can’t fit your thoughts into the Tory or Labour box, first-past-the-post won’t listen to you.
Once upon a time, back when the Conservatives and Labour represented distinct social classes with competing interests, this was a viable state of affairs. But that has long since ceased to be the case. The vote share for the two main parties was the lowest ever at the last election (65.1%).This is now standard. It’s been falling since 1950. It will continue to fall. Over a third (34.9%) of voters now opt for parties other than the Conservatives or Labour.
Those of different inclinations are usually forced to resort to tactical voting, the great bane of British elections. People have their preferred candidate and then they have their realistic candidate. They vote to keep out the one they dislike the most. It is an intensely negative process. It is politics as damage limitation.
The prevalence of tactical voting does tell us something important though: that despite the decline in loyalty to political parties people continue to vote according to broad political allegiances. Voters with anti-abortion views usually have equally authoritarian views on immigration or law and order. People who are concerned about green issues are usually supporters of greater income equality and gay rights.
Despite the cross-party fashion for jettisoning words like ‘right’ and ‘left’, the truth is that most people who care about politics can be placed somewhere fairly specific on the right/left, authoritarian/libertarian matrix. That’s why we vote tactically – because even though someone might really support the Green party, for instance, they will want to make sure the Conservatives don’t get in. So they end up holding their nose and voting Labour.
Tony Blair drove the Labour party to the right by banking on the fact that its voters had nowhere else to go. AV would prevent that sort of manipulation. It allows voters to cast an idealistic vote and still play a part in the mainstream contest. But it also accomplishes something else: it resolves the ‘spoiler effect’.
The spoiler effect is one of those great injustices, like the continued commissioning of The Archers, that is so pervasive and shrill that it somehow escapes everyone’s attention. It is this: that when two parties with similar political platforms compete in an election they split the vote and aid the third candidate to victory. This is why Labour always wants Ukip to do well – so it can split the Tory vote. It’s also why the Tories want the Lib Dems, Greens and smaller socialist parties to do well – because it splits the Labour vote. It’s why Democrats in the States have such hatred for Ralph Nader, who they still blame for letting George Bush in by running in 2000 and 2004. Bush supporters, such as billionaire Richard Egan, even funded his campaign.
Nader supporters would all prefer John Kerry or Al Gore to Bush, but by adding variety to the left/liberal side they helped Bush into power. The first-past-the-post system values specific party support but not broad political allegiance. It just doesn’t recognise its existence. It recognises only strict party discipline.
This phenomenon primarily affects the left, which tends to split more easily. But it also has an increasingly damaging effect on the right, whose big business support (metropolitan, socially liberal, pro-immigration, pro-Europe) is increasingly distant from its core support (rural, socially conservative, anti-immigration, anti-Europe).
The reason No to AV and Yes to AV campaigners become so incensed with each other is because they are talking a different language. Many ‘no’ campaigners genuinely can’t see how complicating the system might make it more accurate, because their assessment of political choice is hopelessly reduced to party loyalty. But political thought is much more complicated than that. It has broad allegiances. It is simultaneously idealistic and practical. It is diverse. It is as much concerned with prevention as it is with accomplishment.
There’s no point overstating what AV can achieve. It is a modest change. The main parties will still exist on May 6th if the country votes ‘yes’. But once the public feels that their thoughts can be communicated without being forced into a Labour/Tory/Lib Dem box, it will crave more. That’s why not even the No to AV camp pretends that we would switch back to first-past-the-post once AV was introduced. It’s a one way street.
The opinions in politics.co.uk’s Speakers Corner are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.
