Referendums are a very un-British device.
Referendums are a very un-British device. They are, as Clement Attlee said, ‘alien to all our traditions’ of parliamentary democracy. Yet in 12 weeks’ time, we are to have the second nationwide plebiscite in our history. Unlike the 1975 vote on whether Britain should stay in the European Economic Community, this one will not exercise the nation. This year’s referendum will be on the alternative vote, a subject that only excites politics lecturers. But the AV vote could have just as profound an effect on our politics as the EEC referendum.
If the people chose alternative voting, Britain will be heading for an era of lowest-common-denominator politics. Parties will shy away from bold leaders who divide opinion. Instead, the electoral imperative will be to find leaders who alienate as few voters as possible. Butskellism — not Thatcherism — will be the order of the day.
Since 1950, the House of Commons has been elected by the first past the post system. We all know the drill. In every constituency, the candidate who polls the most votes wins. This has shaped the contours of our politics. MPs who are either loved or hated can, and do, win.
Under the alternative vote, the electorate is invited to rank candidates in order of preference. These votes are then tallied up. If no candidate has an absolute majority, the bottom candidate is eliminated and their votes redistributed. This process continues until someone has more than 50 per cent of the total.
By its very nature, this system rewards candidates who have broad but shallow appeal. Politicians who take firm stands on controversial issues will fare badly because people tend to rank them either first or last.
It is hard to predict what will happen in the referendum on 5 May because ‘the alternative vote’ is little understood. When one recent survey asked people what they thought it was, many said that it was an alternative to voting.
Few voters have deeply held views on AV, or any view at all. So the campaign will be crucial. In this anti-politics age, both sides are trying to capitalise on dissatisfaction with politicians. The Yes campaign is trying to present AV as a way to make MPs work harder and not fiddle their expenses. The No campaign is trying to cash in on anti-Lib Dem sentiment — claiming that AV will lead to more coalitions and broken promises. Its pamphlet says that ‘under AV, the only vote that really counts is Nick Clegg’s’.
The pro-AV campaign, which is made up principally of Liberal Democrats and Labour supporters of AV, will have a distinct financial advantage. It has raised so much money, with huge donations coming from the Electoral Reform Society and the liberal Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, that it could outspend the No campaign three times over. It is using this money to poll-test its arguments.
The No campaign’s difficulty in raising money has sparked suspicion among Tory backbenchers that David Cameron is quite happy to see AV pass. Some scent betrayal. They say that Cameron’s main priority is not to protect the Conservative interest, but to placate Nick Clegg and his pro-electoral reform Liberal Democrats.
It is true that Cameron has yet to throw himself into the fight. Number 10’s approach has been to wait until the bill has passed through parliament — it is being held up in the House of Lords — before getting seriously involved. This has meant that donors have not been given the nudge that they need to donate to a campaign that they know and care little about.
The Tory parliamentary party is so concerned that last week it summoned the party chairman, Baroness Warsi, to the 1922 Committee to explain the situation. I’m told that Cameron will now become more involved in the fundraising process and that he’ll make a big speech in favour of first past the post next week if the bill is through parliament by then. As one senior Tory puts it, however, ‘all this money should have been raised last year’. It might be too little, too late.
Cameron would be well advised to do all he can to help the No campaign. A Yes vote might please the Liberal Democrats but they would not leave the coalition if the public rejects AV. As one close Clegg ally puts it, ‘walking out after a No vote would make us look like nothing more than the political wing of the Electoral Reform Society’.
But if AV passed, Cameron would find managing his parliamentary party almost impossible. Suddenly, the priority for Tory MPs would be to make themselves acceptable as a second choice to those who didn’t vote for them last time rather than supporting the government’s agenda.
Tory MPs are a nervous bunch at the best of times. But the current crop is particularly jumpy. Even those with comfortable majorities fret about losing their seats. Having spent so long getting into parliament, they have no desire to risk early ejection.
This nervousness is causing problems for the government. Tory MPs get agitated as soon as negative emails from constituents appear in their inboxes. When, for instance, the recent campaign against privatising the Forestry Commission got going, MPs started privately pushing for a U-turn.
If Tory MPs felt that, in 2015, they must not only hold onto their existing support but also win the second preferences of those who did not vote for them at the last election, it would be even more difficult for the government to whip them into line. The number of rebellions, already running at a record rate of one every three votes, would increase dramatically.
Cameron would not be the last Prime Minister to suffer from this weakening of party discipline. Some would say that anything which makes MPs more prepared to defy the whips is a good thing. But the problem is that AV would encourage MPs to be simply blown along by public opinion. For a Prime Minister who wants his government to lead, this would be a disaster.
Comments