« Why do we insist on sticking to the politics of the reign of Queen Anne? | Main | Letter to the PM - add your signature »
July 14, 2009
A volunteer's view of Rally for a Change
Guest blog from Oscar Diamond - MVC volunteer:
As a steward my role was primarily to help with the organisation of the rally and to promote the vote for a change campaign, but I also got to see the various speakers at the rally.
The rally took place under the dome of the Methodist Central Hall which provided an excellent venue for the seven hundred plus attendees to discuss electoral reform and be entertained by some of the campaings celebrity supporters. I was struck by the contrast of the groups attending the meeting and the effect the campaign had on bringing them together. I remember during the ‘voices from the audience’ section the represnetitive of the British youth council pledged it’s support for the campaign, immdiately followed by a member of the national pensioners convention also stating her support, adding that the she agreed that the voting age should be lowered to sixteen.
The questions to the panel section provided some intresting debate between the panelists who were drawn from a range of parties, but where united in their desire to reform the current voting system. The chair of the discussion, Mehdi Hassan, did an excellent job at keeping the deabte focused on electoral reform and the questions being asked, as well as sharing his thoughts on the current first past the post voting system.
What the rally really brought home was the diversity of the support the campaign had. I was expecting to see ‘the usual candidates’ when it comes to reform, but was pleasently surprised by the mix of young and old, black and white and members of many political parties (excluding the conservatives who are bitterly opposed to reform). The rally was a success and proved the campaign has a foundation of support strong enough to make sure the politicians cannot jus pretend they don’t hear the voices calling for change.
Posted by philconnor on July 14, 2009
Comments
I have grave doubts about the wisdom of this proposed referendum. A vast proportion of the population are just not interested in electoral systems and it is dangerous to base actions on the opinions of a comapartively very few more informed citizens
Once again I repeat what the 2003 UCL icpr report had to say:-
"Our survey work shows that people think very little about electoral systems. Hence there is a significant degree of support for first-past-the-post, which reduces only when the deficiencies of the system are pointed out
Focus groups convened to test people’s reaction to different systems suggested that many citizens were unaware of any defects in first-past-the-post until they were pointed out. The attitude of surveyed respondents tended to change dramatically when they found out more about the operation of first-past the-post. Most were converted to some form of PR."
So, unless there is a pre-referendum educational process as recommended by Roy Jenkins in his 1998 report, a process for which there is neither the time nor the organisation before the next election, the proposed referendum could be a disaster putting bck reform to an indefinite date in the future In any case as the Tories are likely to get in in 2010 under FPTP the outcome of such a referendum would be just ignored whatever it was.
A much safer course would be to introduce AV BEFORE the next election. This is not a proportional system but it has many advantages over FPTP; and once it was introduced the Tories if they still got in would have great difficulty in reverting to FPTP.
Many Labour MP's are in favour of AV so would it not be a btter idea to lobby them to pres the PM to introduce this system BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION?
Since AV is STV in single-member consituencies it could easily be converted to the more proportional STV in multi-member consituencies at a more favourable juncture.
In this latter connexion it would not be out of place to quote the last two pargraphs from the Executive Summary of the ERS’s own study of AV:-
"18 AV could be introduced quickly and simply - it would not require complex legislation, new boundaries or a referendum.
19 There is valid debate on whether or not AV would hasten the introduction of a more proportional system. Its intrinsic merits may mean that it persists for a considerable time. But there are avenues that lead from AV to further reform, such as hung parliaments, anomalous results, and harmony between component parts of the UK."
I would also suggest that there would be merit in the very fact of getting rid of FPTP and introducing the electorate to a clearly more rational system which would make them more ready to acccept radical change
Posted by: Joe Paatterson at July 14, 2009 04:26 PM
So Brown now has 3 months freedom from Parliament. Voting reform kicked into long grass unless Alan Johnson keeps the subject alive.
Posted by: Andrew Kitching at July 16, 2009 11:36 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.
