If Nick Clegg genuinely wants this referendum to be broad based, cross party and wants this coalition period to usher in more plural politics - he must split the bill.
Our guest writer is Andy May, national coordinator of Take Back Parliament
With the referendum nine months away some may see arguments over the composition of a parliamentary bill as quibbling over formality and an unwelcome distraction. Unfortunately it’s more important than many people seem to realise – there is plenty of urgent work that needs doing to prepare the ‘Yes’ campaign.
But however much practical preparation on the ground is done the key thing is popular – and cross party – support for change. The Liberal Democrats must recognise that this bill is too important to be hamstrung by their Conservative coalition partner’s insistence that it must be combined with boundary changes.
The problem with the referendum bill as it stands is that it is married to the boundary review, a piece of legislation which is important enough to be a wholly separate entity. Splitting the bill would ensure that the bill is passed with the support and consent of the whole electoral reform movement – not just the Lib Dem contingent of it. By including hurried but far reaching boundary change legislation the Lib Dem leadership risks jeopardising the goodwill of Labour and Welsh and Scots nationalist electoral reformers.
John Denham, the well respected chair of the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform has already laid out his case for the reformists within the Labour party for opposing the AV referendum bill whilst supporting a referendum.
As he states there are some legitimate concerns around the way this bill is being presented. Although I don’t think it’s fair to call it outright gerrymandering he makes some good points. More work needs to be done to ensure individual voter registration is effectively and rapidly implemented.
And crucially any new boundary review based on the electoral roll and reducing constituency size risks skewing the electoral map by ignoring the 3.5 million unregistered voters residing mainly in less affluent urban areas. Stuart Wilks Heeg outlines these problems comprehensively in his Open Democracy piece.
The bottom line is that this is a controversy of the coalition’s own making – or rather a concession to the Tory part of it. The boundary legislation is extremely divisive, messy and an unwelcome distraction from what should be a clear timetable for a referendum on electoral reform presented in one bill. Given this area of reform is being billed by Nick Clegg as one of the most important compromises granted to the Lib Dems as a condition of coalition the passage of the bill should be conducted under their terms.
However much Nick Clegg may feel that Labour are being unfair to call it gerrymandering he should also recognise that it was a mistake to give in to Tory demands to combine the legislation. That mistake should be rectified by a separate vote on the referendum and boundary changes.
If he genuinely wants this referendum to be broad based, cross party and wants this coalition period to usher in more plural politics – he must split the bill.
62 Responses to “The AV referendum bill should stand alone – not shoehorned in with boundary changes”
Suma
RT @leftfootfwd: The AV referendum bill should stand alone – not shoehorned in with boundary changes http://bit.ly/bieAXu
Andy May
Anon E Mouse – I don’t suppose you have any statistical evidence to back that up? I would think the Lib Dem second preferences would split in favour of Labour, particularly as the cuts will inevitably become more unpopular as time goes on.
But which party marginally benefits or loses from AV in the short term is a moot point. This progressive reform shouldn’t be seen solely as a self interested calculation, its a matter of righting a massive injustice. Many Labour supporters will vote for a Yes and hold true to the legacy of the Chartists and Suffragettes in ensuring that political representation as fair and equitable as possible.
Little Metamorphic O
RT @leftfootfwd: The AV referendum bill should stand alone – not shoehorned in with boundary changes http://bit.ly/bieAXu
Anon E Mouse
Andy May – No I think I’m alone in that theory but here’s what I think.
Cameron is in danger in the Conservative Party. Money poured into the coffers – because of his bad behaviour and ineptness Brown was rightly unpopular – if ever a Conservative landslide was in the offing it should have been then. (I am not alone in that view)
That’s fine in a party as weak as Labour has been since Blair’s departure -they lack the killer instinct and didn’t rid themselves of Brown. But the Conservative Party have form where deposing leaders are concerned and Cameron was in trouble.
If Brown had any pride he would have resigned May 7 (as numerous Labour MP’s said he should) and Cameron would have been in a very bad place. Once again Brown’s needs were put before the party.
And Cameron was given time to act – confusion reigned and in rides Nick Clegg. He has a total dislike of Brown and having done so badly in the election himself realises he can actually hold power with the coalition.
Clegg’s always been a Tory and is less tribal than your average Lib Dem so they get on well.
If Clegg dumps the coalition I think Cameron is in trouble with the Conservatives, so in my opinion an AV vote in an election could be rigged against Labour. I think that’s why Cameron has an excuse for no Inheritance Tax, fox hunting or other Tory faves. It also lets him deal with his backbenchers. (If I was him I’d review the funding to political parties to stop the unions funding Labour and destroy them)
Cameron wants AV I believe. Lib Dem supporters shouldn’t vote for Labour’s love of big government and control freakery and given a period in government they may do better at the next election, hopefully under the AV system.
I do hope Labour supporters ignore the wishes of the elites in the party and vote for AV regardless – your last sentence is spot on…
Caroline
Anon E Mouse
I love a good conspiracy theory too.
Re Brown and when he should resign – I think you’ll find that there was a small matter of a constitutional duty to stay – and he has recently been slated for resigning too early (before the coalition had completed their deal). Seems he would be damned whatever he did.
Re Clegg dumping the coalition – like you said he’s a Tory – so I would suggest, if anything it’s more likely that the LibDems dump him first. That would set the cat amongst the pigeons.
Re trade union funding – I don’t really see why you think it’s wrong that thousands of individuals who have joined a trade union and have agreed on the levy from their subscriptions to be given to an affiliated political party. Some unions (PCS for example) choose not to affiliate. Why is is wrong for a few pounds from thousands of people to be given to a political party, but not for massive donations from one person for example Andrew Cook circa 750k to the Conservative party? And why would you want to “destroy” a political party which was voted for by more than 8.5 million people only in May?