« Oh dear | Main | A risk worth taking? »
September 27, 2006
An open challenge to Tom Watson
This is probably the daftest time to try to contact a Labour MP, but last week I sent a note to Tom Watson, asking him to defend FPTP. Mr Watson seems to be a blogger, a man of some intellect and no mean amount of decency. He's also one of the most vociferous supporters of FPTP. I thus figured he'd be the best person to offer a frank and honest defence of FPTP, without any of the usual nonsense that has surrounded all other attempts I've come across in my time here.
He is yet to reply. If anyone is in his constituency, please get in touch with him and point him here.
Dear Mr Watson,
I understand that this being conference season, you're liable to be quite a busy man. I imagine there's a great deal of speech writing, schmoozing and general sucking-up to Gordon Brown to be getting on with. And that's even before taking account of the time to be set aside for working out how many whiskies it's expedient to put on expenses.
Despite these other demands on your time, I'm writing to see if I can't steal some more of it. I want you to write a defence of First-Past-the-Post for publication either on your blog or on the Make Votes Count one. Being (I hear) a wise fellow, and more knowledgeable about the subject than it's healthy for any man to be, it really shouldn't take you that long.
Unfortunately, on account of the pitiable quality of previous attempts by others representing your side, there are some rules that have to be obeyed to keep things both civil and sensible.
You're not allowed, like that cheeky upstart Straw, to bang on about Israel, Italy, or any other nutjob system that no sane person is advocating for Westminster. In fact, you're only allowed to direct attacks on the alternatives to STV, as that's what the majority of electoral reformers (and the Electoral Reform Society specifically) seem to think is a bit cool. Any mention of anything else, including AMS, for example, will merely show you up as an intellectually anaemic and unimaginative fool bereft of any conscience or ability to formulate a worthwhile argument, so it's best not to do it.
I'd also warn you off making too much of the First-Past-the-Post 'constituency link'. By all means make the case for it, but as a good two-thirds of MPs are in effect elected via the party list, and as only a few people know who their MP is and even fewer care, you probably want to be careful.
With such specious frauds out of the way, you may have to search a little harder than usual for decent original arguments. I suggest you try honesty. I rather hope that now you're not so chummy with Tony, the truths can flow that bit more easily. Therefore, arguments along the lines of STV being too complicated or too much of a change for voters to understand and deal with are okay. Lots of voters do struggle with supposedly idiot-proof instructions. It's a valid argument. Of course, whether we want to encourage the congenitally dumb to decide on who gets to spend our money is another question.
Similarly, arguing that it would cost too much for our already cash-strapped parties to give a crap about the whole country rather than just the select few marginal constituencies is okay too. As is positing the idea that it's better to have the party decide (on the whole) who gets to become an MP, rather than the voters, as, for example, the party heads know the candidates better, and the people may be a bit unfair on the more well-known incumbents, however good a job they may be doing. I'm sure you can develop such arguments further if you wish.
You can also try, if you like, to argue that having the results declared on the night is a vitally important part of the political business, but I guess you don't believe that to be the case.
Personal attacks are welcome too, if only to save what's an indubitably dry subject from becoming too tedious to read all the way through.
Finally, I'm leaving these fair offices in but a couple of weeks (give or take), so if you could be so kind as to get your goodies out early, that'd be grand.
Best of luck,
Paul Davies
http://www.makemyvotecount.org.uk/blog
Posted by pauldavies on September 27, 2006
Comments
Good letter! Regarding STV and the alleged difficulty of voters to understand it I would just remind you of the pamphlet issued to inhabitants of Northern Ireland in the early seventies. It is fronted with "PR Pete" quoting the slogan "PR is as easy as 1,2,3" the PR of course being STV. Indeed the Northern Irelanders appear to have no difficulty at all electing representatives to Stormont (when it's functioning) And Southern Ireland have had this system for many years. They were in fact given the oportunity in a referendum to return to FPTP and overwhelmingly rejected such a return - so enamoured were they with STV. The Irish can clearly understand STV and its merits. Are we then perhaps dimmer than the Irish!
Watsons's failure to respond of course fits in with the general pattern where many MP's either refuse to enter into any discussion of electoral systems (guilt?) or at the best prevaricate.
Posted by: Joe Patterson at September 27, 2006 01:04 PM
I remain mildly optimistic that I'll get some sort of response. From what I can tell, Mr Watson REALLY doesn't like people who think FPTP is rubbish. He might be sufficiently moved to explain why.
Obviously he's a bit busy this week. I was hoping to catch him before conference started, but it appears I was too late for that (I sent it about a week ago)
Posted by: Paul Davies at September 27, 2006 01:12 PM
Why exclude AMS? It is used, after all, in the Scottish parliament and the London & Welsh Assemblies. And in sensible countries like Germany and New Zealand (which is particularly relevant - they are a commonwealth country that moved from FPTP in 1992, and voters there overwhelmingly picked AMS over STV and FPTP).
Posted by: Geoff at September 27, 2006 01:30 PM
If Tom Watson is truly, madly, deeply loyal to FPTP - expect him to ask FPTP to resign it's role as the nation's electoral system next week, and begin sucking up to AV...
Posted by: Paul Evans at September 27, 2006 01:42 PM
Hopefully someone is taking over your job, who has the same campaigning zeal?
Posted by: Andrew Kitching at September 27, 2006 02:35 PM
Geoff - because there are problems with AMS - most notably animosity between the two types of representative that you don't get under STV, and time spent denouncing these problems is time wasted, as electoral reformers (the Electoral Reform Society specifically) have already noted and agreed with them. I'm after a proper FPTP vs STV argument, and I've seen nothing on the FPTP side. AMS can wait for now.
Andrew - something will happen, I presume. Probably more a mixture of current/new ERS staff and Malcolm, rather than a one-man show.
Posted by: Paul Davies at September 28, 2006 10:14 AM
We're democrats and believe in free speech, but we're also committed to civil and rational debate. We reserve the right to delete material posted to our site, but we hope and expect to exercise this right rarely if at all.
