Not all sports are first past the post

By Bob Moran in The Guardian 19 April 2011

The above cartoon in this mornings Guardian was to some up the two cross party events yesterday by the Yes and No campaigns in the AV referendum. However, it also draws to mind the No2AV literature which starting arriving on people doormats yesterday morning as well. There were three sportsmen from three different sports featured inside.

The first was Amir Khan the boxer, the timing of his appearance in this literature couldn't have been worse timed. At the weekend Khan retained his title when a doctor stepped in to controversially say that a cut above Khan's opponent eye was too bad for the fight to continue. The thing is in boxing there such event do occur, on Saturday Khan was ahead on points at the time the doctor intervened, but there have been occasions when the boxer leading on the judges score cards has been deemed unable to continue because of a cut. Sometimes such cuts are also the result of illegal actions earlier in the fight like a boxer using the thumb of his glove, or rubbing heads together. Even if the referee has giving warnings or point deductions for such activity if this results in the other boxer eventually bleeding, the fight could be stopped and given to the opponent who may have cheated and may have been trailing to get that far.

The second was Olympic rower Sir Steve Redgrave. Redgrave took part in one of the events that has a strange route to getting to the finals of an event the repechage. This is a way that the rowers who didn't quite qualify for the final as of right in their heats have a second race in which to do this. Redgrave himself is not superhuman and has had off days that have necessitated going through a repechage to get to a final. He's even come through a repechage and gone on to win gold at World Championships. If he'd been trying to qualify for a USA or Kenyan position in a Olympic team athletics event there would have been no repechage no second change, the top three only get to go to the Olympics there is no discretion for the selectors. Yet Redgrave and other rowers do benefit from having that second change within their sport at the highest levels.

The final choice is Sir Bobby Moore the captain of the 1966 England World Cup football sq. Yet in football we now have the misnomer of a Champions League, when in some cases the team that has come 4th in their national championship can go on to lift the title, unlike in the old European Cup where the national champions and the holders fought it out over knockouts from the start. Even as a Liverpool fan I have to admit that our 5th title in 2005 was achieved from just such a position, champions of Europe despite not being champions of England since 1990. Or teams can lose out on aggregate to a team in the various group stages and then go on to win the trophy. There has even been cases of teams being unbeaten on the way through losing out to a team that had lost in the group stages going out on away goals after two draws in the knock out stages.

Football like boxing or rowing is a game where the team that is leading at the first stage isn't always the winner at the end. As Kris Akabushi said when he appeared at a Yes2AV event even in the 100m at the Olympics there are the first and second round and semi-finals. It is rare that the eventual champion will have won every round of that race. What is important is that they win on the final round. Just like Alternative Vote it is getting over the final line, the one that is set at 50%, the one that doesn't move that is important. That will lead to more competitive elections where you are the IPPR report said yesterday.

Do Labour Need a Better Campaign Coordinator?

There is a very good piece by Mark Pack on Liberal Democrat Voice about poor Andy Burnham MP who happens to the be the Labour Party's campaign coordinator.

Burnham has said:

"It would be a recipe for chaos and confusion if Labour candidates were also supporting AV in their literature."

Yet Pack points out that there was no chaos or confusion across London when a referendum called by a Labour government on the same day as other elections.

On the subject of the Alternative Vote and Labour's stance Will Straw on Left Foot Forward is calling for Labour to campaign for the Yes vote. He gives two reasons for this:

Firstly it belies the spirit of Labour’s existing policy at a time when the party is (rightly) criticising others for veering from their previous objectives. Labour’s manifesto said:

"To ensure that every MP is supported by the majority of their constituents voting at each election, we will hold a referendum on introducing the Alternative Vote for elections to the House of Commons."

Also Ed Miliband during his successful leadership bid said "I support AV for the House of Commons and will campaign for it."

Other reasons, he rules out the chaos, confusion and cost element, quite correctly a line of support on literature is not that difficult. 


The opposition from Labour in the commons appears to be nothing more than political sour grapes for finding themselves on the opposite side of the House. It is time to put aside political sniping and get on with the serious business of getting a fairer voting system. 


I look forward to working with the Labour Party in Northern Ireland on getting further votes for Westminster and everyone who believes in this step.
 
Please note this blog is moving to http://stephensliberaljournal.blogspot.com please update your blog roll accordingly.

Remember, Remember the 5th of November...err not in Northern Ireland

Remember, remember the Fifth of November,

The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,

I know of no reason

Why the Gunpowder Treason

Should ever be forgot.

Today is exactly six months from the general election and six month until another little explosion under the Palaces of Westminster, I hope. On the 5th May next year 'there shall be' a referendum on changing the voting system from First Past the Post to a preferential system the Alternative Vote.

Now Willie Sullivan Head of Field Operations for the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign has sent me and all the other supporters a nice email asking us all to do something over Bonfire weekend. Well you see that little star over Belfast, well that is us, and more to the point me as the Northern Ireland Campaign Manager, well we don't do bonfires on this weekend, and that part of the community that does will be doing it too late to help win the vote.

However, that does not mean people in Northern Ireland will be doing nothing. Tomorrow I'm off to the SDLP conference, tonight I shall be attending the North Down Alliance Association table quiz (in conjunction with Stangford Alliance Assoc.), at both events I will be armed with sign up sheets.

You can also sign up at the Yes to Fairer Votes Website, like the Yes to Fairer Votes Belfast Facebook page* and follow us on Twitter. I'll be in touch with everyone who signs up soon about how you can get involve or if you are getting itchy feet and want something to do now, or at least in the next few hours or days email me directly.

* More will follow.

Lights Mr Producer......Drumroll Please.....

Ok folks I dropped the teaser last night. Promising to keep you informed I am doing so now.

Regular readers will know that was in for a job interview at the start of this week. Last night just after 6pm I was offered the position and took no hesitation in accepting it.

The role is as the Northern Ireland Campaign Manager for the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign. Yes if you told me at 3:30 on the morning of May 7th as my votes were being read out that I would be doing this and doing it here I would have laughed at you.



However, I totally agree with the words of Margaret Ritchie MP, MLA the leader of the SDLP from 6th July:

"The British Government is right to give people the opportunity to choose a fairer system for electing their MPs. The current system is completely unfair as it favours the larger parties and discriminates against smaller parties who can get hundreds of thousands of votes but no seats in Parliament.

"My preference would be to extend the STV system of Proportional Representation to Westminster. This system is much fairer and we are already well used to it in Northern Ireland in our Assembly and Council elections.

"The 'alternative vote' is, nonetheless, a clear step forward and I hope that people will support it in the referendum next year. In Northern Ireland this would have the effect of rebalancing politics towards candidates of the centre and away from the extremes.

"Given the kinds of stalemates and brinkmanship we have endured in our politics in recent years, anything that supports parties in the centre is to be warmly welcomed as it is in the best interests of our people.

"The SDLP will campaign vigorously in favour of progressive electoral reform."

I look forward to working with Margaret, the other candidates for the position I now hold and everyone in Northern Ireland who believes in getting fairer votes for Westminster over the next six months. That will be people from all parties or none, across each of the 18 current Westminster constituencies.If you haven't already sign up through this link, if have invite your friends, if you've invited them all make more, or start to ask your neighbours or the people on the bus beside you. Start talking about AV and why it is fairer and lets go out and win this on 5th May 2011.

Indeed one of my first roles, even before I work my current notice period will be attending the SDLP's party conference this weekend. Shows that this really is cohesion, sharing and integration in action and how cross communities this campaign here is. That the first party conference in Northern Ireland from this son of a man raised in Derry's Fountain area and attending First Derry Presbyterian should be to the party that owes a lot of its founding to the struggle of the other community on that side of the Foyle.

As I said last night this will obviously have an impact on the blogging that I do here, probably over the whole of the next six months. I will try and do updates here from time to time, just to give me some down time, but don't expect the same alacrity of posting.

Conference Call Itinery for Today

Checking my desktop diary this morning I should by now have completed my last, scheduled, conference call for work for today. However, I have one more conference call today, with the Yes to Fairer Votes Campaign.

It feels good to be only a few hours away from kicking off a campaign that will at some point deal with my itchy feet to get out there doing stuff, whether it does. anything to deal with my ever increasing waistline since I returned may well depend on what role I end up getting with the campaign. Hopefully by the time of the call, another phone call will have answered one question that has been keeping two of the Northern Ireland Liberal Democrats on edge for a number of days.

But with 182 full days until referendum day kicks off, or potentially in Northern Ireland speak (keeping the Sabbath day holy for some) 156 days to go.



The recent splurge in blog posts from myself and Michael may well take a dip again in the next few days. There will most likely be things that need to be done by whomever in support of whoever.

First Past What Post?

As many reader will now I now reside in North Down won in May by Sylvia, Lady Hermon with 63.3% of the vote. I also stood in Linlithgow and East Falkirk where Michael Connarty beat me and the rest of the field once again, gaining 49.8% of the vote.

Now these are both exceptional cases where in one case the MP has gained a majority of the vote and in the other were even on a preferential system you would expect that the First Past the Post (FPTP) candidate would have been elected. No doubt some of 3rd or 4th place candidates votes would either not have transferred or enough would have to make up that small short fall.

However, what is the post of which FPTP advocates are so keen to defend?

It is off course a movable entity. Take for example another constituency I know reasonably well, indeed I was looking to represent the Southern part of it next May, Edinburgh North and Leith. There the winning post in 2005 was painted red for Mark Lazarowicz with 14,597 votes. Kevin Lang in 2010 took a total of 16,016 on day when the Labour vote was going down on five years previously across the country. Did this reach the post first? No. Because Lazarowicz had moved to 17,740.

The alternative vote does mean that the post is set in stone, at 50% of the vote either as with Lady Hermon cast for you as the first preference or as in the majority of seats as a reflection of the public's additional preferences. AV is actually more of a first past the post system than FPTP, because it has a post that is unchanging, and a post that you need to aim for, rather than a moving line in the sand washed by the political tide.

PS As you may be able to tell I've spent some time on this issue over the past week. No prizes for guessing why. If you want to get involved in the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign visit their website.

UPDATE: I should really not be surprised that Micheal was also thinking along these lines today now should I?

Remember the Chartists and Their Call for Equal Seats

You may recall back in July I condemned Labour's objection to equal sized constituencies by quoting from the 1838 People's Charter which gave rise to the Chartist movement.

Well the people at Take Back Parliament have taken up the theme. They are holding a rally at the Reformer Tree in Hyde Park, London this Saturday to remember the Chartists and their aim, relisted below.

1. A vote for every man twenty-one years of age, of sound mind, and not undergoing punishment for crime.
2. The secret ballot. - To protect the elector in the exercise of his vote.
3. No property qualification for members of Parliament - thus enabling the constituencies to return the man of their choice, be he rich or poor.
4. Payment of members, thus enabling an honest tradesman, working man, or other person, to serve a constituency, when taken from his business to attend to the interests of the Country.
5. Equal Constituencies, securing the same amount of representation for the same number of electors, instead of allowing small constituencies to swamp the votes of large ones.
6. Annual parliaments, thus presenting the most effectual check to bribery and intimidation, since though a constituency might be bought once in seven years (even with the ballot), no purse could buy a constituency (under a system of universal suffrage) in each ensuing twelve-month; and since members, when elected for a year only, would not be able to defy and betray their constituents as now.

So if are you able to get you hands on some appropriate 1830's clothing you can turn up in costume but that's not compulsory go along to support the moves for electoral reform which are still ongoing 160 years after the People's Charter. Go along from 13:00- 17:00 this Saturday, 25th September.

In Which I Agree with Patrick Harvie

With a headline like that I can imagine James MacKenzie writing a press release before he goes to bed this evening. Go ahead James I don't mind.

Earlier today at the Green Party conference, they passed a motion supporting the AV referendum. This Tweet from Patrick Harvey is one I and many other Lib Dems will agree with.



That is just the point we have needed to get a party that believes in proportional representation into Government at Westminster to make even this baby step toward fairer voting. It should not be the end goal as we should represent the people's views and like Patrick and the Greens I believe that needs to be in a proportional system.

The Yes to Fairer Votes campaign is now up and running at their Website. We now have less than eight months until the vote on 5 May next year. Less time that is takes for a baby to go full term, yet this campaign makes sense and the arguments coming out in support of the status quo First Past the Post show how they take for granted that the current system works for their own ends not those of the voters.

So yes we need to get this referendum and then to get a yes vote to continue to make progress in fairer votes.

Conservatives Seeking to Conserve: Change You Can Ignore In

There is a somewhat crude irony that the Tories, as highlighted by ConservativeHome and Iain Dale, are arguing for a threshold on the Alternative Vote (AV) referendum to keep the First Past the Post (FPTP) status quo. The reason being that as recently as May 6th the majority of people in the United Kingdom supported a party that advocating a replacement of FPTP. Both Labour and the Lib Dems advocated change along with many of the minor parties.

There is another irony that on American Labor day the min supporter of AV at that election, the Labour Party are seemingly opposed to voting for it. Not they claim because of AV itself, but because it is paired with making the seats of equal size. Somehow they think that in making every vote have equal value that this is gerrymandering, many of us have yet to find this definition in any dictionary (of for that matter as a footnote or definition in the Blair memoir).

So the threshold argument is just one way to appease Tory MPs not happy with it being in the agreement, but the decision to have a referendum is in the agreement. The fact that the Tories want to have a threshold suggests to me that they know they will lose the argument against change. Be 'conservatives' change is never part of their remit.

AV means that some of those safe, almost hereditary, seats in the shires can't be handed out to some London based, Oxbridge graduated, loyalist for services rendered to the party. Who no more know their constituency that a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company. Who have no more intention of living or staying in their constituency that the Loch Ness monster has of taking a regular bow to the tourists.

I'm no great supporter of AV, like Iain Dale I believe it is the least step away from AV , but unlike Iain I believe the people want and deserve more. They want a system that allows them greater proportionality. Many, like me, have never cast a vote that makes a difference in who our MP was, AV a least will give them that.

However, the more the advocates of FPTP try and argue that it is the best voting system out there for a multiple party system such as ours the more determined I am to get the referendum to pass on 5 May next year. Of course the first step is today getting it started on its path through the House of Commons.

First Socialism, Now Chartism: Labour's Gravestones

You will of course not see the word (S)socialism in any Labour party manifesto since 1992. Of course this was a result of the removal of Clause 4.

There is another precursor to the Labour party through the labour movement: Chartism. The People's Charter of 1838 laid out 6 principles, in he language and context of parliament of the day they were.

1. A vote for every man twenty-one years of age, of sound mind, and not undergoing punishment for crime.
2. The secret ballot. - To protect the elector in the exercise of his vote.
3. No property qualification for members of Parliament - thus enabling the constituencies to return the man of their choice, be he rich or poor.
4. Payment of members, thus enabling an honest tradesman, working man, or other person, to serve a constituency, when taken from his business to attend to the interests of the Country.
5. Equal Constituencies, securing the same amount of representation for the same number of electors, instead of allowing small constituencies to swamp the votes of large ones.
6. Annual parliaments, thus presenting the most effectual check to bribery and intimidation, since though a constituency might be bought once in seven years (even with the ballot), no purse could buy a constituency (under a system of universal suffrage) in each ensuing twelve-month; and since members, when elected for a year only, would not be able to defy and betray their constituents as now.

Now Jack Straw and Labour's argument against the change in constituency sizes is all to do with point one. As David Miliband has just written for Comment is Free "according to the electoral commission, there are currently more than 3.5 million eligible voters missing from the electoral roll, and there is no way that problem can be significantly tackled in just six months". While it may be true that not a lot can be done about in 6 months one has to ask what had Labour been doing about over the last 13 years. Years indeed that there were boundary reviews.

While Miliband is saying that "the government intends to arbitrarily reduce the size of the commons by 50 seats" this is only a 7.7% reduction. In fact up here in Scotland for the 2005 election we did see a redrawing of the boundaries roughly on equal footing while there a 18.1% reduction of seats from 72 to 59. Miliband is also talking about "the rigidity of the arithmetical formula means that traditional communities are bound to be split up".

Maybe he would care to explain to me and Charles Dundas and the residents of Blackburn how in the recent General election I was seeking to represent the majority of the northern part of Susan Boyle's village, while Charles was seeking to represent a southern segment included the Britain's got talent singer. This was a boundary change carried out under Labour and the Boundary Commission.<

What they are all missing is in point 5. The chartist realised that the only way to have equal constituencies was based on the number of electors. Believe it or not this measure of equality is part of the Labour movement's historic fight. It is part of their history just as it is the Liberal Democrats seeing as the Liberals brought that into effect via the Reform Bills are are attempting to correct it again, now that it has got out of equilibrium.

As for the exceptions of the two island seats in Scotland and 3 most northerly mainland seats. Yes four of them are currently represented by Liberal Democrats but it hasn't always been so. Indeed Orkney and Shetland was for many years the only Liberal seat in Scotland before Jo Grimond had other hard working members to join in in the extreme conditions of those large, remote, scattered, far off (even from Edinburgh never mind Westminster) seats.

Seeing as I've had Labour MPs challenge me on the size of what STV seats would mean even in my area, which would be less than these seats are currently, it seems rather two-faced of Labour to no suggest increasing that acreage.

However, I will agree with Labour on one point, the public consultation must still be maintained for the recommendations. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that the recommendations must come up with seats of equal-ish size. That is something that can be dealt with my amending the proposals rather that scuttling the entire ship though.

PS You didn't hear anyone argue for the 6th and never fulfilled Chartist ambition o annual elections to make sure MPs would "not be able to defy and betray their constituents as now" during the expenses issue. Wonder why?

Labour's 11 Week U-Turn

In the Labour party manifesto for May they had as point one under The next stage of national renewal:

Referenda, held on the same day, for moving to the Alternative Vote for elections to the House of Commons and to a democratic and accountable Second Chamber.

It is there in black and white.

So how do they respond to just such a bill that will be introduced to move to the Alternative Vote for Westminster elections? The shadow cabinet, who bear in mind are largely the cabinet that framed said manifesto, say they will be voting against it.

Jack Straw says that the bill being introduced with a reduction in the number of members, which both Coalition partners stood on, which will require boundary changes is gerrymandering. How on earth Labour can thing equalling out the size of constituencies can be construed as gerrymandering is something I'd already dealt with. Though to summarise to resist equalising the representation for each MP is actually more like gerrymandering to any sane individual.

Mark Harper, the constitutional affairs minister sums up the reaction to Labour's ludicrous assertion by saying:

"All this bluster simply highlights the fact that Labour MPs do not believe in seats of equal size and votes counting equally across the whole of the United Kingdom."

It does look like the inclusion in the manifesto was to try and wean some Lib Dem supporters back to vote Labour and to try and prepare the way for possibly a Lib-Lab pact after the election. Labour failed on both counts when it became obvious that they cannot be trusted in either circumstance. This new turning away from their own manifesto pledge is further proof of that.

Reason Why the Fifth of May is Wrong Date for Referendum

It is just over 24 hours from when the announcement for a date of a referendum on AV for Westminster was decided to be up against next May's Scottish Election but already we can see how the SNP are going to use it. The SNP are talking about the lack of respect to the Scottish people, Fiona Hyslop going further cutting to the chase when she said:

"It's important that we see action and not just warm words on respect.

"And in terms of what this is saying in terms of how the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Government and the Scottish people are being treated, I think this is an example of the British Government just not working for Scotland.

"I think this announcement shows a bit of coalition chaos, where the parties in London seem quite prepared to have a referendum on a voting system that they don't really support but not have a referendum on independence to decide the powers that the Scottish people could have."

That last part is the bit that is going to be concentrated on not respect as that will be shoved out the window by the SNP at the earliest convenient opportunity. No there will be the name calling over why one referendum is good and proper and another is not. There will be no respect for the fact that the Lib Dem MSPs were elected to Holyrood Parliament in 2007 on the promise that they wouldn't hold a referendum on independence in the next four years.

That was a stance I disagreed with on the stand alone principle of it from my stance as a democrat. It has been exasperated now by our own leader the Deputy Prime Minister making two announcements of Westminster to piggy back the next two Scottish elections. In 2015 we already have the concurrent elections of a 5-year fixed term Westminster and the 4-year fixed term Scottish Parliaments, now there are plans to ride over next years Scottish elections too.

For a party that believes in devolution we are being perceived of going a strange way about it, strangling the distinct Scottish message of all parties our own included for the elections for the next eight years of Scottish life with two UK-wide debates simultaneously.

Crowded Fifth of May Next Year !?!

Anybody who's anybody in Scottish politics or with an interest in it will remember the last time Scotland went to vote for its own Parliament. Many recall it like a nightmare only we were in an upright position and awake all night living through horrendous images with no net result. One thing that was clear was that people did seem to want to give preferential votes to candidates however they wanted to do it on the wrong ballot papers, or indeed on only one side or the duel purpose Parliamentary ballot paper.

However, there is news that a referendum on AV for Westminster will take place on the first Thursday of May next year. A date which has long been in my diary as the next Scottish Parliamentary Elections. On Wednesday night at the Edinburgh Central hustings a question about the clash of an AV referendum and the fact that one of the four of us would be fighting for the seat did come from the floor, and what impact would it have on the campaign.

Personally I know first hand that voters expect their MPs or MSPs or candidates to be well versed on all areas of political influence, even if with devolved governance to Holyrood or Council level they may not necessarily have responsibility for that area of policy directly for the person they seek to represent. The number of times you have to say this is devolved, Westminster or council issue before giving an answer shows this.

My plans for the next year are to secure more Liberal Democrat representation in Holyrood. It is why I've put myself forward into the fray is the way I have for Edinburgh Central. In the Lothians it will be a bellweather indicator of how well the Liberal Democrat message is radiated with people. We'll be fighting to get across the message of what Liberal Democrats can do and in fact have been doing in the other levels of governance that represent the people. First and foremost next May will be about the governance of Scotland, I doubt any of the parties in either Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland will be concentrating on the referendum they'll be focusing on the more pressing issue of winning seats in constituencies and votes across the regions.

Also personally I'm not really geed up by AV. Is it really a step towards more proportionality or is it a road block in the way to more? An appeasement to lure in Lib Dems to give the Conservatives more than many of us wanted? I don't think it is radical enough, it doesn't give the people a say over who really represents them, merely which party representative does. It maintains party politics above the ability to vote for party but reject objectionable individuals.

In Linlithgow and East Falkirk where I stood in May AV wouldn't have changed the result, Michael Connarty won with 49.8% which with none transfers from other candidates would mean that he would have been secure even if he didn't pick up the remaining 0.2%. However, lets assume STV had happened across the West Lothian and Falkirk Council area.

The vote was*

• Labour 74,056 49.0%
  
• SNP 40,869 27.1%
• Conservative 17,162 11.4%
• Lib Dem 17,130 11.3%
• Others 1,794 (1.2%)

Now it would have given Labour 2 secure seats, however the third may well have gone, indeed a real propability, to the party that 27% of people who had voted for the second biggest party in all three seats; the SNP. Who because of the votes in excess of 45% for Labour in the three seats would not under AV had the change of winning their proportional share for over half of Labour's vote.

* This of course assumes no tactical voting had gone on under the restrictions of First Past the Post

Clegg and Cameron Say No Privilege Defence: Brown Silent

Nick Clegg and David Cameron, leaders of the Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties respectively, have agreed that the three MPs facing criminal charges over their expenses should not claim privilege as a defence. Cameron said he was disgusted and Clegg that the public would be outraged if Elliot Morely, David Chaytor and Jim Devine used their stated 1689 Bill of Rights defence of privilege.

While Cameron is saying he will say more at a press conference on Monday Nick Clegg speaking at the Welsh Lib Dem conference said:

"Lawmakers shouldn't be above the law and they should not be invoking 17th century conventions in order to avoid paying their expenses".

However, the Prime Minister has been quiet on the specifics neither distance himself from the individuals or offering support. He been talking generically:

"We have taken the action necessary to clean up politics, but I am determined now to reconnect Parliament and the public, to bring politics back to the people. It's their Parliament, not ours.

"This expenses scandal has been a scar on democracy and has done great damage to the reputation of parliament. We are putting the discredited old system behind us and I want to see the new system in place as soon as possible."

He went on to talk about his Alternative Vote proposal as his trump card to clean up this mess. The fact that he is having a daily attendance allowance rather than an itemised, individual, receipt based expenses system shows that he has failed to understand the public's desire for transparency for their MPs.

As Mark Thompson pointed out our electoral system does appear to have some contribution to play in these scandals, he's also pointed how how disproportional AV is and would actually have returned Labour a bigger majority in 1997. Hardly a way to replace a discredited system with one that can be manipulated just as much by the party machinery to get their way.

Brown's AV Proposals Hand Edinburgh South to Lib Dems - Curtice

Last night Eric Joyce asked on Twitter, "AV [Alternative Vote] Voting. Any thoughts?" so I had a little debate with him about how it was change not reform etc. How it still gave too much power to the parties and not enough to the people. he went strangely silent on me when I asked. "Why now? It was discussed pre-1997 by the Blair-Ashdown negotiations. Why wait 13 years?".

I take it Eric's silence adds strength to the argument that Gordon Brown is proposing this now as a political expedient not out of any real commitment. Indeed in this morning's Scotsman John Curtice points out that the Lib Dems are everyone's second favourite, so AV would help the Lib Dems, but only he says in seats where are already a strong second like in Edinburgh South. Indeed he thinks AV would deliver us a dozen or so extra seats.

Of course the other issue is who is going to be second favourites elsewhere. Curtice says:

"The SNP is unlikely to gain much either. The Nationalists cannot be sure of winning more second preference votes from Conservatives and Liberal Democrats than Labour.

"But who do Liberal Democrat and SNP voters prefer more – Conservative or Labour? The answer is clear – Labour. In the ICM poll, 45 per cent of Liberal Democrat supporters said Labour was their second choice, only 28 per cent the Conservatives. Only a handful of SNP supporters in the 2007 local elections gave any support to a Tory candidate.

"So where Labour lie a close second to the Conservatives, the new system could enable them to capture the seat. But the Conservatives are unlikely to gain where they are close to Labour – while of the two parties they are also more likely to be leapfrogged by a local Liberal Democrat."

It is a fault with a majority system such as AV which is not proportional to the voting intentions of the electorate but merely a reallocation of the votes to the next best option.

Andrew Burns the Labour leader on Edinburgh City Council self deprecates with his blog title Really Bad Blog, but this morning I want to hold him up as a Labour elected representative who speaks sense.

He says seeing as the use of Alternative Vote (AV) for Westminster Elections have now been tabled as an amendment to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, he says it is:

"Pretty straightforward to adjust it from a majoritarian to a proportional system ... "

He then outlines almost the wording (bar the use of 2 member constituencies and a few other pieces) that I think a Lib Dem MP should be tabling replacing AV with a Single Transferable Vote System(STV).

STV also gives more power to the people, last night Eric Joyce was bemoaning the fact that 8 MSPs had some say over the voters of Falkirk that he represents. He was also saying that he liked to let the people have their personal say over his re-election. Thing is the bulk of that say is down to the local party, there only is one Labour candidate that the people of Falkirk have to vote for under the AV proposals.

Say if under STV Falkirk and say Livingston and Linlithgow were returning 3 MPs there may well be 2 or 3 Labour candidates for the people to choice from. It would combine the aspect of the people deciding which Labour candidate was their preferred option, plus also decide between the various candidates. This may not be to Eric's liking for his own personal reasons* but suits people like Iain Dale who advocate open primaries. It gives a certain amount of power to the people. It makes peoples votes fairer and is proportional rather than a shifting of the votes.

My current choice of words to explain Brown's position is a misquote of Neil Armstrong. AV is one small step which suits Labour best, where is the giant leap for fairness to the electorate?

In conclusion Curtice sums up Brown's long road to his Damascus moment to change the voting system like this:

"Under current circumstances at least, the attractions of the Alternative Vote for Labour are clear. Its adoption would make it even more difficult for the Conservatives to win a majority, only make it a little easier for the Liberal Democrats to secure extra seats, while Labour's chances of winning a majority might even be enhanced.

"Not so much "new" politics as an old-fashioned political fix."

Brown is fiddling but at least Andrew Burns is man enough to spot the score.

PS On a point of order made by Caron on twitter of course we don't need AV to get Fred Mackintosh as the MP for Edinburgh South. He is more than capable of overhauling that 405 vote margin over Nigel Griffiths Candidate X under first past the post.

Read also: Alistair Carmichael MP on why you should beware of dying Governments bearing gifts. Plus Mark Thompson estute as ever on whether AV is even worth campaigning for.

*Most expensive MP in the House of Commons.