It has had more than its fair share of back-biting, aggro and, ahem, mistruths. But tomorrow, we will finally arrive at polling day, and Britain will go to the polls to decide whether to change the way we elect our MPs.
In recent days and weeks, opinion polls have shown an increasingly large lead for the NO campaign - one eve-of-election poll put YES on 32% and NO on 68%.
With an apparently unassailable lead for NO, there is little to be done in the way of predicting what will happen when the votes are counted on Friday afternoon.
On the other hand, the repercussions could be significant. Nick Clegg will have seen to have failed to get out of the coalition the one thing that his party so desperately craves - electoral reform.
Indeed, his position as Lib Dem leader - if not necessarily as Deputy Prime Minister - could be under threat. Certainly, potential challengers such as Chris Huhne, Tim Farron and Vince Cable have recently sought to assert themselves and emphasise their differences with the Conservatives, the senior partner in the coalition government.
David Cameron will be reasonably satisfied with a NO vote. Ed Miliband has supported YES, but will let the Lib Dems take the flak for the result.
The referendum was desperately pushed by the Liberal Democrats - but what looks to be its landslide rejection will demoralise the party and could cause ructions in the coalition. One thing remains to be determined - the level of fallout as a result of a NO victory.
P.S. What a waste of time and space this piece will have been if it is a YES victory!
Showing posts with label AV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AV. Show all posts
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
Yes to Fairer Votes?
Just a quick post, but the graphic below shows the fallacy of AV being a more proportional system, something that many will infer from its self-titled campaign of 'Yes to Fairer Votes'.
The graphs show the results of the 1997 general election in percentage of votes (left) and percentage of seats (right). On the right-hand graph, the lighter shades demonstrate the results under AV - Labour getting even more seats (nearly 70 per cent of all seats), and the Conservatives' 30 percent of the vote accounting for just 15 per cent of the seats, or 96 constituencies. Only the Lib Dems' seat share is more proportional - is it any wonder they are the only party united in favour of AV?
P.S. Calculations of what 1997 AV result would have been are from here.
The graphs show the results of the 1997 general election in percentage of votes (left) and percentage of seats (right). On the right-hand graph, the lighter shades demonstrate the results under AV - Labour getting even more seats (nearly 70 per cent of all seats), and the Conservatives' 30 percent of the vote accounting for just 15 per cent of the seats, or 96 constituencies. Only the Lib Dems' seat share is more proportional - is it any wonder they are the only party united in favour of AV?
P.S. Calculations of what 1997 AV result would have been are from here.
Monday, 18 April 2011
AV set to be rejected?
Interesting to see an ICM poll suggesting that NoToAV would receive 58 per cent in next month's referendum, with a huge gap opening up between the camps.
ICM is regarded by many, particularly Mike Smithson at Politicalbetting.com, as the 'gold standard' pollster, so to have such a big NO lead will surely deflate the YES campaign.
Importantly, the poll also covered Northern Ireland - I believe it is the first time any AV polls have included the province, as its differing party system means it is not included in standard Westminster voting intention questions.
I am slightly wary about this poll, though, for two reasons:
1. It is the first to give such a substantial to either side, and I wonder what has caused such a big jump (even if it was nearly a month since the last ICM poll, the only one to which this latest survey can be accurately compared).
2. I still maintain that YES voters will be more likely to turn out. As with March's National Assembly for Wales powers referendum, many people who would vote NO if they went to the polling station, simply do not care enough to actually go and mark their ballot.
The effect of differential turnout in Scotland and Wales, and those parts of England with local elections, is difficult to gauge - but it may be crucial.
I'll update the blog with any interesting sub-sample results when I have seen them.
ICM is regarded by many, particularly Mike Smithson at Politicalbetting.com, as the 'gold standard' pollster, so to have such a big NO lead will surely deflate the YES campaign.
Importantly, the poll also covered Northern Ireland - I believe it is the first time any AV polls have included the province, as its differing party system means it is not included in standard Westminster voting intention questions.
I am slightly wary about this poll, though, for two reasons:
1. It is the first to give such a substantial to either side, and I wonder what has caused such a big jump (even if it was nearly a month since the last ICM poll, the only one to which this latest survey can be accurately compared).
2. I still maintain that YES voters will be more likely to turn out. As with March's National Assembly for Wales powers referendum, many people who would vote NO if they went to the polling station, simply do not care enough to actually go and mark their ballot.
The effect of differential turnout in Scotland and Wales, and those parts of England with local elections, is difficult to gauge - but it may be crucial.
I'll update the blog with any interesting sub-sample results when I have seen them.
Sunday, 17 April 2011
AV campaign intensifies in increasingly bad-tempered and divisive contest
Twelve months after the general election, British election machines are once again moving up through the gears. 5th May sees a plethora of different contests across the country:
It is curious to note, and one cannot help but do so, that the only national vote - whether or not the UK should change its method of electing MPs from the First Past the Post system (FPTP) to the Alternative Vote (AV) - is becoming increasingly ill-tempered. Former Liberal Democrat leader Lord Ashdown has, in today's Observer, issued a strong rebuke to what he termed the "scaremongering" of the NO campaign.
Lord Ashdown also described the tactics of Conservative Party chairman Baroness Warsi as "tawdry" and "indefensible". Warsi's cabinet colleague, environment secretary Chris Huhne, has already been compared to Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels.
I will not here go into the merits of a YES or NO vote. What is becoming apparent, however, is the relatively small role of Labour leader Ed Miliband in the campaign. Admittedly, he did cause a minor stir after apparently refusing to share a stage with Nick Clegg, but ever since he has taken a back seat role.
This may turn out to be a wise move from Miliband. His detractors might argue that he is not a strong enough leader to take a more active role in the campaign, and with his net approval rating at -19 per cent according to today's YouGov poll, he is far from an automatic vote-winner.
In addition, his party is split almost down the middle on the referendum, making it hard for Miliband to push the issue without the risk of causing splits within the party. Labour grandees Lord Prescott, David Blunkett and Margaret Beckett favour a NO vote, while most of the shadow cabinet have endorsed a YES vote.
Miliband, though, will be pleased to see members of the government attacking each other over the issue, and with Vince Cable's attack on the PM's immigration plans, cracks within the coalition are perhaps starting to emerge. The coalition government has insisted that it will not be fatally wounded whatever the referendum result in May.
But Nick Clegg will be aware that this was his flagship policy from the coalition. The Lib Dems will be demoralised should NO prevail, and Ashdown's remarks display a palpable sense of worry within Cowley Street. Ed Miliband may be backing YES, but, from a political perspective, he might not be too disheartened by a NO vote. He will be able to sit back and take advantage of the likely repercussions.
AV referendum
Scottish Parliament
Welsh Assembly
Some English councils/unitary authorities/mayoral contests
Leicester South parliamentary by-election
It is curious to note, and one cannot help but do so, that the only national vote - whether or not the UK should change its method of electing MPs from the First Past the Post system (FPTP) to the Alternative Vote (AV) - is becoming increasingly ill-tempered. Former Liberal Democrat leader Lord Ashdown has, in today's Observer, issued a strong rebuke to what he termed the "scaremongering" of the NO campaign.
Lord Ashdown also described the tactics of Conservative Party chairman Baroness Warsi as "tawdry" and "indefensible". Warsi's cabinet colleague, environment secretary Chris Huhne, has already been compared to Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels.
I will not here go into the merits of a YES or NO vote. What is becoming apparent, however, is the relatively small role of Labour leader Ed Miliband in the campaign. Admittedly, he did cause a minor stir after apparently refusing to share a stage with Nick Clegg, but ever since he has taken a back seat role.
This may turn out to be a wise move from Miliband. His detractors might argue that he is not a strong enough leader to take a more active role in the campaign, and with his net approval rating at -19 per cent according to today's YouGov poll, he is far from an automatic vote-winner.
In addition, his party is split almost down the middle on the referendum, making it hard for Miliband to push the issue without the risk of causing splits within the party. Labour grandees Lord Prescott, David Blunkett and Margaret Beckett favour a NO vote, while most of the shadow cabinet have endorsed a YES vote.
Miliband, though, will be pleased to see members of the government attacking each other over the issue, and with Vince Cable's attack on the PM's immigration plans, cracks within the coalition are perhaps starting to emerge. The coalition government has insisted that it will not be fatally wounded whatever the referendum result in May.
But Nick Clegg will be aware that this was his flagship policy from the coalition. The Lib Dems will be demoralised should NO prevail, and Ashdown's remarks display a palpable sense of worry within Cowley Street. Ed Miliband may be backing YES, but, from a political perspective, he might not be too disheartened by a NO vote. He will be able to sit back and take advantage of the likely repercussions.
Thursday, 14 April 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)