AV broadcasts – which will resonate?

Political election broadcasts are usually dry affairs. This is perhaps no great surprise; parties have to attempt to condense into a few minutes the highlights of their manifesto as well as compelling reasons why the other lot should not be rewarded with your vote. It was, therefore, a refreshing change – purely from a point of view which values good television entertainment – to have finally caught up with the two Alternative Vote referendum broadcasts (link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13047896).

The NO to AV broadcast was shown first, last Monday evening. Attempting to illustrate what the campaign sees as the main drawbacks of AV, it featured three separate skits. Firstly, viewers saw the return of the fictional MP Alan B’Stard (apparently having abandoned the Conservative Party, which he was portrayed as a member of in the BBC political sitcom of 1980s and 1990s). Promising a raft of populist but unaffordable measures, B’Stard reveals that AV, which the film suggests leads to perennial and inevitable coalition governments, has given him a supposedly valid excuse for abandoning his promises.

The NO campaign has used Nick Clegg’s unpopularity as a key campaign theme, and the attacks on the Liberal Democrat leader are thinly-veiled in this broadcast. B’Stard emphasises his pledge to abolish all tuition fees, echoing a similar promise in the Lib Dem manifesto. Viewers will surely have made the link that NO wanted them to: Clegg broke his promise because parliamentary arithmetic forced him into a coalition. AV would lead to perennial coalition government, and increasingly hollow manifesto commitments.

B’Stard’s cameo role is followed by a horse race, in which the third place horse, ‘Lib Dem’, is awarded the winner’s trophy. Leaving aside the veracity of the argument (and the analogy is a false one), the sketch is effective at portraying what it claims is the inherent unfairness of an electoral system in which most (initial) votes do not necessarily a winner make.

Finally, perhaps the most compelling section of the broadcast. A teacher attempts to explain AV to a class of pupils, who are flummoxed by her explanation despite her reading from a chunky ‘AV manual’. Again, the teacher’s description of the workings of the Alternative Vote are not wholly accurate, but the concept of second- and third- (etc) preference votes being used surely confuses many voters. This is perhaps the most inherent weakness of AV, and although it is not, in fact, as complex as it is purported to be in the broadcast, there is a successful emphasis placed on the perceived complexity of the system.

By contrast to the relatively professional production of the NO broadcast, the broadcast, on Tuesday, by the ‘YES! to fairer votes’ campaign was a turgid affair. It featured a number of shouty constituents cornering their MPs, putting them on the spot by implying that AV encourages them to work harder.

Certainly, there are some merits to this argument. Candidates, under AV, would have to appeal to a broader range of voters than just their core support. Perhaps, too, there would be fewer MPs who felt they could take the risk of cheating on their expenses. Many members of Parliament, however, resent the insinuation that they do not work hard enough, and have said as much in response to the broadcast.

However, such a response perhaps plays into the hands of the YES campaign, allowing them to play their strongest card – that the current system of First Past the Post is a politicians’ wheeze. Again, this is not necessarily a credible argument, especially considering that most parties actually support a YES vote. However, the prevailing anti-politician mood remains strong, and if the YES campaign can be successfully portrayed as tapping this mood, it may tip the balance in favour of change.

Purely as television features, NO was clearly a superior production. Its demonstration of AV’s supposed complexity will resonate with voters, but perhaps only those who have begun to consider the referendum question, which, I daresay, is not a high proportion of the electorate. If YES can associate a NO vote with an implicit blind eye to political misdemeanours, however, it may trump any advantage that the NO transmission accrued. It is rather difficult to assess the potential impact of two overtly negative broadcasts.