UK changing to AV?

[SJBarley]

I just recieved some propaganda,telling me to vote no on the planned changes to the voting system,the same system that has left this country with a government we didn't vote for.Their reasons why we should vote no?Because Nick Clegg broke his other promises, really?This isn't about individuals its about how fair our voting system is.Personally I think both systems are corrupt as fuck but regardless I don't take kindly to having idiots propaganda shoved through my letterbox. Now while I feel this, I'm interested to see what other fellow UK leftists have to say about the topic? Is this just a poor attempt to get me to vote correctly, or a feeble attempt to lead me to the wrong decision?

[Tommy4ever]

The no campaign has been an utter disaster. :laugh:

I know a few people who are voting yes just because of the no propoganda.

In the end AV does make some minor improvements that might help smaller parties foster a little more strength which would help us. The idea would be that although they wouldn't initially get Parliamentary representation we woud be able to see who people would really want to vote for if they weren't afraid of the 'other guy'.

[bailey_187]

AV strengthens middle of the road parties

obviously i dont think FPTP is going to lead to anything great or real changes, but AV will make politics even shitter, more about compromises between parties and selection of moderate candidates even more so than now. Not that "un-moderate" candidates makes any sort of real difference or change, but atleast there are some voices that differ at times.

[bailey_187]

The no campaign has been an utter disaster. :laugh:



thats true. their whole argument seems to be "its too expensive" or "its too complicated, u wont understand".

[Manic Impressive]

I've been reading what various communist parties views have been over the last few weeks and most seem to be going for a no vote. Their main reasoning seems to be "it's not good enough" with the CPB saying that it could set back the movement for proportional representation a long time. But if AV is defeated I can't see another vote being held for PR any time soon and in fact the failure of this vote would be used as an excuse not to hold a vote on PR. So I've started to swing yes but tbh I probably won't bother voting :p

[Tim Finnegan]

The importance of AV is not in any reforms that it produces in itself, but that it puts reform itself on the table. A "no" return for AV can and will be interpreted as popular contentment with the existing system, while a "yes" return at least makes it clear that people are open-minded about the possibility of change. Proportional representation isn't going to come about by expressing support for the current system.

[SJBarley]

so from what I can gather comrades, I should vote yes to change to AV?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The importance of AV is not in any reforms that it produces in itself, but that it puts reform itself on the table. A "no" return for AV can and will be interpreted as popular contentment with the existing system, while a "yes" return at least makes it clear that people are open-minded about the possibility of change. Proportional representation isn't going to come about by expressing support for the current system.

I wholeheartedly disagree. AV, though marginally better than FPTP, will in reality change little in practice for the better. It is, as you say, merely a stepping stone that you say, puts reform on the table.

I say that if AV wins, then the establishment will put the issue of reform to bed, especially is there isn't a great clamour for AV particularly from the general populace.

I will vote no, not as an endorsement of FPTP, but as a rejection of the partial reformism of the still-bad AV system. I want PR, I want elections every year or every two years and I want re-callable delegates, not representatives. I will not vote for some half-arsed measure that will allow the likes of Clegg and Hughes to prance around claiming they are progressives and democrats.

[Tim Finnegan]

I say that if AV wins, then the establishment will put the issue of reform to bed, especially is there isn't a great clamour for AV particularly from the general populace.

I will vote no, not as an endorsement of FPTP, but as a rejection of the partial reformism of the still-bad AV system. I want PR, I want elections every year or every two years and I want re-callable delegates, not representatives. I will not vote for some half-arsed measure that will allow the likes of Clegg and Hughes to prance around claiming they are progressives and democrats.
But the "No to AV" camp is, despite the neproclamations of various far-left non-entities, very much under the control of reactionary anti-reformists; what makes you think that a victory for that camp will lead to the sort of radical campaign you talk about? As you say, there's very limited enthusiasm for even the piddling reforms that we have on offer, so I don't really understand why you think that a rejection of that will lead to the sort of radical neo-Chartist campaign you suggest. Whatever the outcome, that sort of thing requires a heavy amount of radical agitation, and the limited reforms on offer, at least, put election reform in its general sense into the sphere of advocacy of consequence.

[caramelpence]

Vote no to make Nick Clegg cry.

...and hopefully undermine the coalition, but above all to make Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems suffer, given that they'll be destroyed in the local elections on the same day.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

But the "No to AV" camp is, despite the neproclamations of various far-left non-entities, very much under the control of reactionary anti-reformists; what makes you think that a victory for that camp will lead to the sort of radical campaign you talk about? As you say, there's very limited enthusiasm for even the piddling reforms that we have on offer, so I don't really understand why you think that a rejection of that will lead to the sort of radical neo-Chartist campaign you suggest. Whatever the outcome, that sort of thing requires a heavy amount of radical agitation, and the limited reforms on offer, at least, put election reform in its general sense into the sphere of advocacy of consequence.

The official 'NO2AV' campaign is so poor, though, that I doubt it really is going to influence a great many people outside the Conservative Party/UKIP cadre.

I think a great many people will vote no, on the honest pretence that the YES2AV lot have fought an equally poor campaign, or that if they do know about AV, that they (rightly) think it is pants and not worth changing to.

In any case, this is a fairly minor issue for me. Britain is one of the most shameful exponents of monarchical anti-democracy in the western world and it's hugely unlikely that even with AV that a genuine leftist party would be allowed to flourish.

[Rufio]

Vote no to make Nick Clegg cry.

...and hopefully undermine the coalition, but above all to make Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems suffer, given that they'll be destroyed in the local elections on the same day.
Vote no to make Nick Clegg cry, and David Cameron and his paymasters smile. A no vote A no vote compounds tory hegemony for decades, at least. People voting no against Nick Clegg I assume wouldn't want that but that is what they're going to get. I don't even think it will affect the coalition because they know they'll be obliterated if they leave. There'll have nowhere to go, just have to hope (a vain hope but thats better than no hope for them) that in 4 years time they'll somehow come out looking credible. A yes vote is mor elikely to damage the government by isolating Cameron from the right.

The latest polls have 'no' 16 points in front so it's all academic anyway I suppose. Switching to AV is not exactly the stuff of revolutions anyway!

[Futility Personified]

I think that AV is something that could garner more exposure for smaller parties, getting ideas like ours actually talked about rather than ignored as deliberately as they are in the media. AV may not be perfect, but it's a foot in the door and that is something that is important to embrace. Concessions aren't just pacifications, they can also be a means to an end, and this could be the start of if not something brilliant, then a start to a start of something better. Saying "I won't vote because I want PR" when half the country don't know what PR is may be principled, but not practical, and seeing as the left in the UK is all about being principled but are as practical as a smackhead in a school, we urgently need to connect with politics in a way that shows us as an option on the ballot papers, not in Labour hijacked demonstrations.

[Tim Finnegan]

The official 'NO2AV' campaign is so poor, though, that I doubt it really is going to influence a great many people outside the Conservative Party/UKIP cadre.

I think a great many people will vote no, on the honest pretence that the YES2AV lot have fought an equally poor campaign, or that if they do know about AV, that they (rightly) think it is pants and not worth changing to.
But that's because the majority of voters are disconnected from issues of electoral reform altogether. The sphere of discussion for these issues is small and unstable, and handing the ball to that camp which is dominated by those whose stated goal is to eliminate that sphere isn't going to somehow make it larger and more stable.


In any case, this is a fairly minor issue for me. Britain is one of the most shameful exponents of monarchical anti-democracy in the western world and it's hugely unlikely that even with AV that a genuine leftist party would be allowed to flourish.
Again, AV is not the change we're after in itself, just the foot in the door.

[bailey_187]

I think that AV is something that could garner more exposure for smaller parties, getting ideas like ours actually talked about rather than ignored as deliberately as they are in the media. AV may not be perfect, but it's a foot in the door and that is something that is important to embrace. Concessions aren't just pacifications, they can also be a means to an end, and this could be the start of if not something brilliant, then a start to a start of something better. Saying "I won't vote because I want PR" when half the country don't know what PR is may be principled, but not practical, and seeing as the left in the UK is all about being principled but are as practical as a smackhead in a school, we urgently need to connect with politics in a way that shows us as an option on the ballot papers, not in Labour hijacked demonstrations.

It will help small moderate, middle of the road parties e.g. Greens, Lib Dems. thats all.

Labourites will put the Greens or Lib Dems (after the coalitions stuff has blown over maybe) as number 2 and Tories will put UKIP

[Vanguard1917]

Bailey is right: AV will encourage candidates to be more politically bland than they already are. Hence eradicating 'extremism' -- i.e. non-mainstream candidates -- openly being presented as a selling point by the Yes campaign.

If we want views in parliament which challenge those of the political elite, we need to vote no to what is effectively an attempt to further depoliticise political life in Britain. A proportionally representative electoral system would be a step forward, but the AV campaign really has nothing to do with that.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

But that's because the majority of voters are disconnected from issues of electoral reform altogether. The sphere of discussion for these issues is small and unstable, and handing the ball to that camp which is dominated by those whose stated goal is to eliminate that sphere isn't going to somehow make it larger and more stable.


Again, AV is not the change we're after in itself, just the foot in the door.

I take your points, but feel vindicated in that, with the election around the corner and the Lib Dems and Labour both campaigning for a yes vote, people aren't sold on AV, nevermind being conscious of proper electoral reform. So, even if AV snuck a win, people wouldn't be clamouring for more PR. You see what i'm saying?

We need someone to come forward with a proper electoral system, rather than a fudge that nobody is even interested in.

[Tim Finnegan]

I take your points, but feel vindicated in that, with the election around the corner and the Lib Dems and Labour both campaigning for a yes vote, people aren't sold on AV, nevermind being conscious of proper electoral reform. So, even if AV snuck a win, people wouldn't be clamouring for more PR. You see what i'm saying?

We need someone to come forward with a proper electoral system, rather than a fudge that nobody is even interested in.
Fair points, but I think that it's important to prop open what little discussion space we have. While PR while take a definite popular drive one way or the other, the success or failure of AV dictates whether this drive will have any real presence inside the political establishment. A successful "no" vote will demoralise and quite possibly dissolve the parliamentary support bloc- Labour and the LibDems will likely end up trying to dump the blame on each other, aside from anything else- while a "yes" vote proves that there is at least marginal interest in reform- or, if I'm perhaps more honest, limited interest in maintaining the status quo.

I mean, if we're going to hold out for an ideal, then we'd toss out bourgeois reform altogether and start shouting "all power to the Soviets", know what I mean?

[bailey_187]

The No vote could also destabilise the coalition, as for many Liberals the only justification for being in the coalition is that they will acheive a change in the voting system.

[Tim Finnegan]

The No vote could also destabilise the coalition, as for many Liberals the only justification for being in the coalition is that they will acheive a change in the voting system.
Destabilise, perhaps, but it'd be far from a killing blow. Clegg took a hell of a gamble jumping into bed with the Tories, and if he can't prove himself as a capable member of government, thus winning over enough of the centre-leaning Tory vote to justify sacrificing the losses to his left, then he and his party are finished. That means that the coalition isn't going to be something he backs out of easily, especially when he's always been willing to seriously scale-back the party's campaign for electoral reform- which was, at one point, for STV, if not outright PR- to make the coalition work.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm with El Granma on this one re. proper electoral reform vs. cheap shots. Personally I've been most unfortunate to have been suckered to such a political cheap shot in recent years.

[caramelpence]

A no vote A no vote compounds tory hegemony for decades, at least.

Firstly, I don't see how this could possibly be true - there were several elections during the course of the last century where it was precisely because of FPTP that Labour was able to win a parliamentary majority despite having won a lower share of the popular vote than the Tories or the non-Labour parties combined, so I don't see how the rejection of AV would automatically entail Tory hegemony, let alone for decades, given that FPTP has facilitated the electoral success of Labour in the past. If your aim is to get Labour re-elected, then you should vote no for that reason, because a no vote is the best way to destabilize the coalition, as myself and others have pointed out. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I fail to see why we should respond to what is ultimately a fairly limited political contest, produced as part of the process of coalition formation, according to what outcome is most likely to benefit Labour, especially when AV is also likely to encourage moves towards the centre rather than allowing a genuine space for the radical left. Our job as revolutionaries should not be to facilitate Labour's success, it should be to destroy Labour's political hegemony over the working class and its economic organizations. In addition to consolidating Labour's hold over working-class politics by undermining radical forces, AV supports the illusion that genuine change can come about through elitist adjustments to the electoral system.

Destabilize the coalition, reject elitist electoral engineering, break with Labourism - vote no.

[Jimmy Haddow (SPS)]

The AV referendum: what are the issues involved?

Barring an unexpected upset in the House of Lords the Con-Dems’ Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill will soon become law, paving the way for a referendum in May to change the method of electing MPs to the ‘alternative vote’ system. What position should socialists take? CLIVE HEEMSKERK writes.
DURING LAST YEAR’S student rising, as police chiefs discussed whether to ask for water cannons to deal with future protests in the age of capitalist austerity, the political representatives of the system were also debating how best to beef up their defences – in this case, their Westminster positions – against the growing rage outside.
The constituency re-organisation aspects of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, nearing the end of its legislative journey, are certainly a clear case of Tory gerrymandering. The number of MPs will be cut from 650 to 600 – a smaller parliament is a long-standing Tory goal – and constituency boundaries will be hastily re-drawn (with local inquiries abolished). This will be done on the basis of an electoral register that excludes an estimated 3.5 million adults (rather than, for example, waiting for the forthcoming census returns), reducing, in particular, the social weight of the inner-cities in parliamentary representation. While the overall electoral registration rate has dropped from 97% in 1988 – before the poll tax – to 91% now, a 2010 Electoral Commission survey showed the disproportionate effects, with 31% of black and minority ethnic residents and 49% of private sector tenants not registered, for example. On this basis alone the whole Con-Dems ‘reform’ package should be firmly opposed by the labour movement.
But the provision to change the voting system in parliamentary elections, from ‘first-past-the-post’ to the ‘alternative vote’ (AV) method – provided there is majority backing in a referendum in May – has won support from sections of the ‘left’, from the Guardian newspaper and the Green Party to, unfortunately, the veteran left-winger Tony Benn, John McDonnell MP, and the PCS civil servants union.
The Yes campaign speaks of ‘a fairer voting system’ but AV is no more democratic than the present position, and arguably less so. More importantly, AV will not make any easier the process of establishing a new vehicle for working class political representation, a new workers’ party, the key task posed, on the political plane, by the era-defining struggle against the cuts. From a longer term perspective, an AV system would create barriers – not insurmountable but real nonetheless – to the prospect of a mass workers’ party of the future winning a parliamentary majority. The Socialist Party will be campaigning for a No vote in the forthcoming referendum.
Is AV ‘fair’?

BRITAIN’S MPs are currently elected in single-member, geographically-based constituencies, in which the front runner wins, even if the vote that he or she receives is less than 50% of the votes cast.
In the AV system proposed in the Parliamentary Voting Systems Bill, voters will still elect one candidate from one geographic constituency. However, instead of voting for one candidate they will be able to rank one or more in order of preference. If, after the first preferences have been counted, no candidate has secured over 50% of the votes cast, then the bottom candidate will be eliminated and their second preferences redistributed to the remaining candidates. This process will be repeated until one candidate reaches a majority or, as not every voter will necessarily list second or third preferences, only two candidates remain and no more re-distributions are possible.
Is this a ‘fair’ system? AV has been used in Australia in single-member seats for the House of Representatives since 1919 and has produced election results as disproportionate on occasions as those under Britain’s ‘first-past-the-post’ system. One example was the election that followed the constitutional crisis of 1975, when the Queen’s representative, Governor-General Sir John Kerr, dismissed the Labour government – elected in 1972 after 23 years of Liberal/Country Party rule – which had enacted some Keynesian measures against big business profits and threatened to close US military bases in Australia. The Liberal Party was behind the Australian Labour Party (ALP) in the national vote, but won nearly twice as many seats after votes were re-distributed, legitimising Kerr’s ‘constitutional coup’.
Another example is last year’s general election in Australia which saw the Greens breakthrough to win their first seat – but they polled 11.76% of the national vote to win one seat, out of 150, compared to the now capitalist ALP’s 72 seats on a 38% vote. In contrast, under the first-past-the-post system, the Greens won their first MP in last year’s UK general election with just 1.1% of the national vote (standing in 334 seats).
AV is not a proportional system. Following the 1997 election Tony Blair established a commission, headed by the former Labour right-winger and Liberal Democrat peer, Lord Jenkins, to study alternatives to first-past-the-post. The Jenkins Commission eventually proposed an AV-plus system, with 80-85% of MPs elected on an individual constituency basis but with others elected on a ‘top-up’ basis to create greater proportionality, similar – although with a more restrictive threshold – to the systems used for the London assembly, Welsh assembly, and Scottish parliament elections.
The Commission considered a simple AV option, noting approvingly that one of its ‘formidable assets’ was the fact that "there is not the slightest reason to think that AV would reduce the stability of government; it might indeed lead to larger parliamentary majorities". (Voting Systems: The Jenkins Report, October 1998) But as the Commission’s ‘remit’ included ‘relieving disproportionality’ – the Jenkins Commission was set up Blair and the then Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown purposely to find ways to entrench and consolidate the process of transforming the Labour Party into New Labour, to make coalitions the ‘new normal’ – so AV was rejected because, "in some circumstances… it is even less proportional than first-past-the-post".
Electoral reform and the workers’ movement

THE DEBATES AROUND the Jenkins Commission, and earlier discussions on electoral reform by the ruling class and their right-wing shadows in the workers’ movement, are instructive, particularly those that took place when the Labour Party was a ‘capitalist workers’ party’ (with pro-capitalist leaders but with democratic structures that allowed the working class to fight for its interests), not fully under the control of the ruling class.
The 1970s, for example, saw the emergence of a Conservative Campaign for Electoral Reform, following the shift towards the left within the trade unions and the Labour Party as a result of the enormous class battles under Edward Heath’s Tory government of 1970-74. A key Tory supporter of electoral reform, the MP Sir Anthony Kershaw, stated its aim at the time: "I feel that electoral reform is necessary if the country is to be run democratically and not against its wishes by a militant minority" (Obituary, The Telegraph, 30 April 2008) Tory representatives welcomed, and noted, the AV-created disproportionate landslide defeat of the Australian Labour government in the 1975 general election.
The experience of Chile was also pondered, where Salvador Allende had initially been elected president in 1970 with 36% of the vote and, under the pressure of the masses, nationalised over one third of industry (the Popular Unity parties subsequently increased their vote to 44% in the March 1973 parliamentary elections, the last elections before the military coup which overthrew Allende in September). Electoral reform, in other words, was explicitly seen as a means to stop the possible coming to power of a Tony Benn-led left Labour government ‘on a minority vote’. (This period, and the 1970s debates on constitutional reform, are discussed in more depth in an article by Peter Taaffe, The Brutal Face of Toryism Behind the ‘Liberal’ Mask, reprinted in Socialism Today No.113, November 2007)
As The Economist remarked in a later debate on electoral reform, summing up the calculating attitude of the capitalists to the different forms of parliamentary democracy, there are "many faces of fairness". The task is to "ask, in each case, what function the elected body serves, what they want to achieve… and is it worth the upheaval" to change the electoral system. (1 May, 1993)
Marxists, in contrast, have always been champions of the widest democracy, including its extension to the economy and society as a whole. The working class has always had to fight for democratic rights like the right to free association (including trade unions), free expression (including workers’ papers), even the ‘rule of law’ against the arbitrary exercise of power and, of course, the right to vote and universal suffrage. Extending and deepening democracy within capitalist society strengthens the working class and its organisations, necessary both for the task of ending capitalism and the building of a new, socialist society. But when it comes to parliamentary systems, the workers’ movement too must look at who is proposing what, why, and in whose class interests.
So could socialists consider supporting AV in the forthcoming referendum? One possible argument is that it would help the development of a new workers’ party, the absence of which is a critical factor today. The transformation of the Labour Party has given the Con-Dem government a freer hand for their brutal measures. Just to compare the meek acquiescence of Labour councils now to the battles conducted in the past shows the consequences of this change. Although they eventually capitulated to Thatcher’s dictates, leaving Liverpool and Lambeth councils to fight alone, at one point 20 Labour councils were preparing to resist the government in the battles of the mid-1980s.
The Labour Party always had the potential to act at least as a check on the capitalists. The consequences of radicalising the Labour Party’s working class base was a factor the ruling class had to take into account. Now the situation is completely different. Without the re-establishment of at least the basis of independent working class political representation, the capitalists will feel less constrained in imposing their austerity policies.
In this situation a more proportional electoral system would increase the chances of an electoral breakthrough by a new workers’ party or a pre-formation of one, such as the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC), an electoral alliance involving leading left trade unionists like the RMT transport workers’ union general secretary Bob Crow, along with the Socialist Party, the SWP and Solidarity – Scotland’s Socialist Movement. But would AV further the development of a new workers’ party?
Would AV help a new party?

SOME SUPPORTERS of a Yes vote say that AV would help by removing the argument created by the first-past-the-post system that standing socialist candidates ‘lets in the Tories’. It would be possible, the argument goes, to call for a first preference vote for TUSC, for example, and then recommend a second preference for the Labour candidate to avoid the risk of a Tory or Liberal Democrat victory.
But AV would not make it easier for a socialist candidate to actually win a seat. The closest the Socialist Party and its predecessor organisation, Militant Labour, has come to winning a parliamentary seat under first-past-the-post was in the general election of 1992 when Dave Nellist, the MP for Coventry South East expelled from the Labour Party, stood independently. The Labour candidate won the seat with 11,902 votes, ahead of the Tory candidate with 10,591 votes and Dave a further 40 votes behind on 10,551. If just under 700 Labour voters had voted for Dave instead he would have won the seat. But almost certainly not under AV.
The Liberal Democrats came fourth with 3,318 votes. Their candidate would have been eliminated and the Liberal Democrat voters’ second preferences re-distributed to the top three candidates. If the Tory candidate was in third place, their preference votes would have then been re-distributed. In the polarised context of the general election of 1992, it would have been highly unlikely that Dave would have secured sufficient preference votes to have gained first place when re-distributions had finished.
Since 1992, it is true, with Labour no longer a capitalist workers’ party, there has been a long-term erosion in voters’ ‘identification’ with political parties. Socialist Party candidates in local elections, for example, while winning many votes from those who would otherwise not vote at all, have often been able to win ‘protest votes’ from people who would ‘normally’ vote for other parties (and have secured victories under the first-past-the-post system).
But a protest vote is not the same as voting for a governmental alternative. AV would give a greater opportunity than first-past-the-post for the capitalist parties to ‘gang up’ and swap preferences against the candidates of a future mass workers’ party. Certainly, if a mass workers’ party existed, why should it not take advantage of the splits between the capitalist parties that the first-past-the-post system can not so easily overcome?
There is, of course, no ‘pure’ electoral system not open to manipulation by the ruling class and their political and legal representatives. The Socialist Party’s Joe Higgins was elected as a member of the Irish parliament (TD) for the Dublin West constituency in 1997, and re-elected in 2002, under the multi-member constituency single transferable vote (STV) form of proportional representation. But Dublin West has been one of the most re-drawn constituencies in Ireland in recent years and, in 2007, with a legal dispute ongoing that the number of TDs it elected was one short under the constitutional norm – a full quota would have ensured another victory for Joe – he was narrowly edged out. (He then went on to win a seat in the European parliament in 2009 in another multi-member STV election).
AV, however, is far less than ‘pure’. Whatever the outcome of the referendum, socialists will seek to gain the best advantage possible from the electoral terrain that exists. Militant, predecessor of the Socialist Party, had three MPs elected as Labour candidates in the 1980s – Dave Nellist, Terry Fields in Liverpool, and Pat Wall in Bradford – under the first-past-the-post system. Our sister party in Australia has won council elections under the AV system there. But it would be wrong to give any support to the idea that a system that could be used against the workers’ movement in the future is more ‘democratic’.
What is the alternative?

THE QUESTION ON the referendum ballot paper will effectively present a choice between the current system and AV: "At present, the UK uses the ‘first past the post’ system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the ‘alternative vote’ system be used instead?" Doesn’t a No vote guarantee a further delay in the development of a new workers’ party, as once again workers turn to vote Labour against the Con-Dems?
But that does not take into account perspectives for the era ahead. The Con-Dems are embarking upon the worst cuts in a generation, in a new world situation where there is no way out for capitalism except by attacking the conditions of the working class. Mass resistance is inevitable – and that will transform working peoples’ outlook. Labour will re-gain ground electorally but that does not mean that a force rooted in the mass opposition to the cuts will necessarily be ‘squeezed out’ on the electoral field.
The experience of elections during the anti-poll movement is instructive. While Labour soared ahead in national opinion polls, it was not the only electoral outlet for the mass opposition to the poll tax. The Scottish National Party triumphed on a ‘We’re not paying the Poll Tax’ platform in the November 1988 Govan by-election, overturning a 19,509 Labour majority just 17 months after the 1987 general election (and then refused to support mass non-payment!). The Greens won 2.29 million votes, a 15% protest vote in what is still their highest ever vote in a UK election, in the European elections in June 1989 – as the first poll tax bills were sent out in Scotland and registration began in England and Wales. All this was in the context of the Labour Party still being seen by many workers as ‘our party’, and after a decade of Tory rule.
The 1990 local elections, five weeks after the mass anti-poll tax demonstrations, confirmed this trend. Labour had just made a dramatic by-election gain in the safe Tory seat of Mid-Staffordshire and was ahead by over 20% in national opinion polls. The same polls showed that, as a general sentiment, the government was blamed for the poll tax rather than local councils who were implementing it. (NOP Review, July 1990) But that did not mean that individual councils were let off the hook in the local elections that followed in May. Labour performed poorly in councils where they passed on government cuts to their funding in higher than projected poll tax bills (Rawlings and Thrasher, Parliamentary Affairs, 1991) – while, of course, threatening draconian action to collect the tax – and only increased its national share of the vote by 2%. Significantly Labour’s best West Midlands performance was in Coventry and the only Metropolitan borough it gained was Bradford. In Liverpool, although the overall balance of the council Labour group had shifted to the right after the High Court’s removal of the 47 councillors who defied the Tory government from 1983-87, many councillors still supported non-payment – backed by MPs Terry Fields, Eric Heffer and Eddie Loyden – and Labour consolidated its position against the Liberal Democrats.
Outside of the Labour Party, however, there were only a few anti-poll tax union candidates in 1990, some of whom recorded votes of 20% or more, but the aftermath of the movement showed – if belatedly – what could have been achieved by a wider electoral challenge. The newly-formed Scottish Militant Labour (SML) won four seats on Glasgow council in May 1992, just weeks after another Tory victory in the April 1992 general election (in which Tommy Sheridan came second in Glasgow Pollok with 6,287 votes, 19.3%). In all, from May 1992 to February 1994, SML polled 33.3% of the total votes cast in 17 local council contests with Labour (36.1%), winning six.
The political impact of the anti-poll tax movement was muted by the limited character of the issue and, more generally, by the ideological triumph of capitalism after the collapse of Stalinism and its impact on workers’ consciousness and their organisations, including the transformation of Labour into New Labour. But the next period will be completely different to the 1990s.
The sense of foreboding for the future that grips the more thinking strategists of the ruling class is shown in the debates on the lessons of the Geddes Axe which have taken place amongst Tory historians, not only on how this post-first world war slashing of state spending prepared the way for the 1926 general strike, but also in its political consequences. The early Labour Party, a new workers’ party then, emerged on the back of the attacks on the trade unions in the first decade of the twentieth century but was still a ‘minor party’ when the Geddes Report was published in December 1921. But the Geddes cuts were a major factor in a surge in support for Labour, whose seats rose from 59 in 1918 to 142 in 1922.
The next period will see era-defining events, with great upheavals in consciousness and institutions, including the trade unions, as the impact of the cuts savagery unfolds. The question of independent mass working class political representation will once again be posed. But AV will not aid the struggle to bring such a formation into being and therefore socialists should campaign for a No vote in May.


From Socialist Today, February, 2011

[Tim Finnegan]

...reject elitist electoral engineering...
As if that's not what we have already? :confused:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

But AV is by no means a break with that, so why vote for it?

I honestly don't believe that, at this point in time, there is a will for electoral reform, at least not to AV. I really don't believe that a winning YES vote will put electoral reform on the table.

Why would people be worried about technocrat engineered changes to the electoral system (but not the wider political system) which will first affect the national elections in 4 years time, when they have jobs, homes and debt to worry about?

[Tim Finnegan]

But AV is by no means a break with that, so why vote for it?

I honestly don't believe that, at this point in time, there is a will for electoral reform, at least not to AV. I really don't believe that a winning YES vote will put electoral reform on the table.

Why would people be worried about technocrat engineered changes to the electoral system (but not the wider political system) which will first affect the national elections in 4 years time, when they have jobs, homes and debt to worry about?
Fair points. I suppose I may be lending this reform more significant than it deserves; I'm probably so desperate to see some sort of move towards a less insane system of government that I'm willing myself to find more in it than my objectively be there. (That's the problem when your legislative body is still, fundamentally, a system by which senior land-owners may petition the king: anything seems like an improvement.) However, that really just suggests that we shouldn't get too excited about it one way or the other, not that we need vote against it. If the reform will be as low-impact as you suggest, then it won't make much difference to further reform and will at least slightly rationalise the broken system we have.

[Rooster]

Cameron just said that he thinks that AV is wrong because he feels it in his gut. Then he went on to say that politics shouldn't about mind bending tests but should be about how to feel... "in your gut".

[Manic Impressive]

I heard on the news this morning that not one single country who has adopted AV has managed to pass further reform from AV to PR. I'm swinging again

[caramelpence]

As if that's not what we have already?

FPTP is an elitist system in the sense that it not representative, even in terms of the translation of existing vote shares into seats, let alone according to a more substantive conception of representation, but what I actually meant when I characterized the referendum as elitist is that the referendum itself is the product of a seedy coalition deal rather than a mass movement, and the alternative on offer, AV, is not backed up by any form of widespread political agitation or enthusiasm. The referendum is a deal brokered between two rival wings of the political elite, it is not a clash of ideological alternatives, or a route to greater democratic accountability.


(That's the problem when your legislative body is still, fundamentally, a system by which senior land-owners may petition the king: anything seems like an improvement.)

This is a faulty analysis from every angle. You are presumably referring to the House of Lords. Taken as a whole this house does not have veto power in the same way as the upper houses of bicameral legislatures in other countries, either for all areas of policy or for specified policy areas, regardless of its current composition, rather, it has delay power only. More importantly, to the extent that it does have a role in the political system, it should be understood not as a bastion of landed property or aristocratic privilege, or as something that is indicative of a lack of political modernization in Britain, but as a very contemporary body that reflects the political processes of late capitalist society, because of the increasing numerical and political weight of appointed members, as opposed to hereditary peers, who represent a means by which technocratic political parties and the ruling class can obstruct the small elements of democracy that do exist elsewhere in the political system. The current role of the House of Lords is indicative of the authoritarian direction of long-term political development under capitalism and in that sense to portray the British political system as antiquated is to fall into a very dangerous position because of what it infers about the political institutions that best reflect the interests of capital in the imperial heartlands - namely, that monopoly capitalism is best served by or is straightforwardly compatible with democratic institutions. If there is something about the House of Lords that revolutionaries should be concerned about it is precisely the fact that hereditary peers are being replaced by appointed peers, because the latter are probably more dangerous as far as democracy is concerned!

[Tim Finnegan]

FPTP is an elitist system in the sense that it not representative, even in terms of the translation of existing vote shares into seats, let alone according to a more substantive conception of representation, but what I actually meant when I characterized the referendum as elitist is that the referendum itself is the product of a seedy coalition deal rather than a mass movement, and the alternative on offer, AV, is not backed up by any form of widespread political agitation or enthusiasm. The referendum is a deal brokered between two rival wings of the political elite, it is not a clash of ideological alternatives, or a route to greater democratic accountability.
My point was that FTTP was "engineered" by an "elite" as much as AV is, so it's hard to argue against it on those grounds, as if that's actually a point of a distinction between the two.


This is a faulty analysis from every angle. You are presumably referring to the House of Lords. Taken as a whole this house does not have veto power in the same way as the upper houses of bicameral legislatures in other countries, either for all areas of policy or for specified policy areas, regardless of its current composition, rather, it has delay power only. More importantly, to the extent that it does have a role in the political system, it should be understood not as a bastion of landed property or aristocratic privilege, or as something that is indicative of a lack of political modernization in Britain, but as a very contemporary body that reflects the political processes of late capitalist society, because of the increasing numerical and political weight of appointed members, as opposed to hereditary peers, who represent a means by which technocratic political parties and the ruling class can obstruct the small elements of democracy that do exist elsewhere in the political system. The current role of the House of Lords is indicative of the authoritarian direction of long-term political development under capitalism and in that sense to portray the British political system as antiquated is to fall into a very dangerous position because of what it infers about the political institutions that best reflect the interests of capital in the imperial heartlands - namely, that monopoly capitalism is best served by or is straightforwardly compatible with democratic institutions. If there is something about the House of Lords that revolutionaries should be concerned about it is precisely the fact that hereditary peers are being replaced by appointed peers, because the latter are probably more dangerous as far as democracy is concerned!Actually, it was a reference to the fact that our system's clunkiness derives in a large part from its origins as a system of representation for burghers and gentrymen, rather than as a true popular assembly. The House of Lords has nothing at all to do with it.

[Rufio]

Firstly, I don't see how this could possibly be true - there were several elections during the course of the last century where it was precisely because of FPTP that Labour was able to win a parliamentary majority despite having won a lower share of the popular vote than the Tories or the non-Labour parties combined, so I don't see how the rejection of AV would automatically entail Tory hegemony, let alone for decades, given that FPTP has facilitated the electoral success of Labour in the past. If your aim is to get Labour re-elected, then you should vote no for that reason, because a no vote is the best way to destabilize the coalition, as myself and others have pointed out. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I fail to see why we should respond to what is ultimately a fairly limited political contest, produced as part of the process of coalition formation, according to what outcome is most likely to benefit Labour, especially when AV is also likely to encourage moves towards the centre rather than allowing a genuine space for the radical left. Our job as revolutionaries should not be to facilitate Labour's success, it should be to destroy Labour's political hegemony over the working class and its economic organizations. In addition to consolidating Labour's hold over working-class politics by undermining radical forces, AV supports the illusion that genuine change can come about through elitist adjustments to the electoral system.

Destabilize the coalition, reject elitist electoral engineering, break with Labourism - vote no.
re Tory hegemony FPTP is the system that allows the tories a majority with 40% of the vote when the rest want something totally different. It's the system that drags Labour to the right as they scrabble for the middle England swing seats that decide elections. Despite that it also entrenches Labour, because it's them or the tories. Under a fairer electoral system we would mostly have moderate social democratic governments but room for genuine leftist organisations to grow, rather than being squeezed out by the Labour Party.

I disagree that a no vote is the best way to detabilise the government as I said, the Liberals won't like it but leaving the government if that happens will be like jumping out of a plane because they won't give you a parachute.

If you weren't voting at all I could understand that position.But voting no is engaging with an elitist political system, and endorsing it.

[caramelpence]

My point was that FTTP was "engineered" by an "elite" as much as AV is, so it's hard to argue against it on those grounds, as if that's actually a point of a distinction between the two.

I haven't suggested that FPTP is different in that respect, so at least it seems we can agree that neither electoral system is a radical alternative, in which case it's difficult to see how anyone could support a yes vote. However, the point that I've made and that you seem to be missing is that it's not only that the electoral systems themselves are geared towards the preservation of the interests of the dominant political parties, it's that this specific referendum is a direct result of a process of coalition formation that never received a direct mandate and is best understood as a strategic concession made by the Tories to form a majority government - it is similar to other historic referenda such as France's 1958 referendum on constitutional reform in that it reflects the need for political elites to settle a disagreement amongst themselves (when that disagreement cannot be dealt with through other forms of negotiation and decision-making) and resolve their internal differences so that they can maintain their dominant position more effectively. Its fundamentally elitist character is evident not only from its origins and the comparatively small stakes but also from the way in which campaigning has been conducted, specifically the fact that both campaigns have been eager to stress how their respective systems will discourage "political extremism", as if moderation is inherently good, and electoral systems need to be so designed as to prevent support for "extremist parties" translating into political representation.

You've really yet to put forward any good arguments for voting yes.


Actually, it was a reference to the fact that our system's clunkiness derives in a large part from its origins as a system of representation for burghers and gentrymen, rather than as a true popular assembly. The House of Lords has nothing at all to do with it.

You may well characterize parliament's origins in these terms, but not only is it difficult to think of a European or international legislature that was not the result of elite consensus or interests in some form, it's also difficult to see how the historic origins of the British parliament are at all relevant for its current role or what stance we should take on electoral reform - parliament is no longer based on the interests of landed elites either in terms of its social composition or the class interests it serves, and its "clunkiness", whatever that means, is the result of its role in the state apparatus of an advanced capitalist society, not its historic background.


re Tory hegemony FPTP is the system that allows the tories a majority with 40% of the vote when the rest want something totally different

Guess what - in no election since 1945 has any single party managed to obtain more than 50% of the vote, even though, prior to the current government, there was only one election (February 1974) that resulted in a parliament in which no single party had an absolute majority. So if your concern is with some liberal concept of what "the rest want", then you could plausibly argue that in every single instance of Labour government, the rest wanted something different, and that Tory governments might even have been more democratic than Labour governments, due to the ideological differences between the Tories and the Liberals/Lib-Dems being smaller than those between Labour and the Liberals/Lib-Dems, such that the Tories would have won in a two-way contest. So if your main concern is avoiding "Tory hegemony", then best support keeping FPTP. The assumption here if of course that warding off Tory rule should be the main priority, but as I've already pointed out, I can't accept the opportunist Labourism that position involves.


It's the system that drags Labour to the right as they scrabble for the middle England swing seats that decide elections.

The assumption here being that it is electoral systems that determine the ideological positioning of parties - an assumption straight out of the most old-fashioned currents of institutional analysis in political science and one that has nothing to do with anything resembling a Marxist or sociological analysis. Parties are not free-floating organizations that are flexible in response to the demands of electorates and the opportunities offered by different electoral systems, and Labour in particular has a determinate social role as the party that mediates between the interests of the trade-union bureaucracy and various other strata, such as middle-class professionals, and sections of the bourgeoisie. To the extent that it was ever a workers party, this was because of its links to the trade-union bureaucracy, accounting for its dual role as a bourgeois workers party, and these links have, to say the least, been eroded in recent decades.


Despite that it also entrenches Labour, because it's them or the tories

And revolutionaries should reject both, not adopt opportunist Labourism.


Under a fairer electoral system we would mostly have moderate social democratic governments

The issue isn't "fairness", its the oppressive nature of bourgeois class rule and the ultimate role of the state in capitalist society.


but room for genuine leftist organisations to grow, rather than being squeezed out by the Labour Party.

"Leftist organizations" grow in class struggle, by taking part in the struggles of the working class and remaining in close contact with those struggles at the same time as seeking to identify the strivings within the activity of the class that point the way to the development of struggle, not by playing the electoral game.


I disagree that a no vote is the best way to detabilise the government as I said, the Liberals won't like it but leaving the government if that happens will be like jumping out of a plane because they won't give you a parachute.

Maybe so, maybe not, but even if the Lib-Dems do not quit the government, it will facilitate divisions and tensions within the party, divisions and tensions that are already present, not only because of the role of the Lib-Dems in the government, but also indicated by willingness of Lib-Dem supporters to vote against the referendum or otherwise object to it due to the paucity of the alternative on offer.

Clearly, opportunist Labourism is alive and well within the ranks of the British "left".