Social Liberal Forum's Dr. Prateek Buch argues that Yes to AV would benefit the progressive majority and democracy in general.
Two topical political issues – the imminent referendum on the alternative vote, and the Liberal Democrat action to have Andrew Lansley’s health reforms significantly amended – are intimately linked, but perhaps not in the way in which press commentary might suggest. Contrary to some opinion, it’s a Yes vote that would strengthen the Lib Dems’ position within this and any coalition and would bring far greater progressive influence to bear on government.
Arguing for the status quo; a first-past-the-post electoral system that returns a majority of MPs without majority support and gave rise to the abuse of expenses amongst other distortions, the No campaign cites FPTP’s supposed ability to deliver ‘strong government’.
Leave aside the fact that a plural political landscape delivered a coalition even under the current system, and picture today’s Conservatives in power on their own: no rise in the income tax threshold or capital gains tax; tax cuts for the rich; and of course Lansley’s unpopular and non-evidence based NHS reforms pushed through unaltered.
It’s coalition government that’s kept a check on the worst Tory tendencies, and given a chance for progressive policies to be put into place.
Beyond the immediate impact of the referendum’s result on the internal dynamics of the current coalition, we need to analyse which result would be favourable to delivering a progressive, centre-left agenda in the long run.
As Vince Cable made plain at the weekend, it’s clear that a plural, progressive alliance, largely reflecting the nation’s centre of political gravity, has been thwarted in recent years by FPTP. Successive governments – whether Blue or Red – have formed on the back of an electoral system that leaves many millions of people without an MP they support to any degree, and have enjoyed a virtually free hand in parliament to pursue policies that fail to enhance the interests of most of the electorate.
It’s time to bring the undemocratic farce that is FPTP to an end, and May 5th’s referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to do so.
So would AV give us better government – would it lead to fewer fiascos like the current NHS reforms?
Of course the best way to have excellent progressive policies implemented is to have a majority government elected on such a platform – as Nick Clegg made clear in a keynote speech last week. Failing that, an electoral system that forces MPs to canvass broader support, that gives each voter at least some say in who represents them, and that makes plural government more likely, is a clear improvement over the status quo.
Not only would Conservatives find it harder to push through ideologically-driven market reforms to public services – the NHS reforms being an example – but Labour’s authoritarian streak would also be quietened. And not only in coalition – any majority government returned by AV would have to take a more considered approach to public policy, taking account of how it sustains broad cross-party consensus for its manifesto.
It might not be the ideal way of organising our national politics, but the alternative vote is undoubtedly a better way; in giving everyone more of a say in how the country is run, it makes shrill appeals to a minority of voters or vested interests less likely to win absolute power – and that can only be a good thing.
49 Responses to “Vote yes for progress and the progressive majority”
Prateek Buch
Interesting comments…
@Ash – the amount of money that a raised income tax threshold gives to low earners in cash terms may be more for higher earners, but as a percentage of income it’s clearly better for lower earners – not least for those tens of thousands of low-waged people lifted away from income tax full stop. As a percentage of income it’s more impacting for those lower down the income scale, that is my understanding. As for your claim that the NHS policy is thoroughly Lib Dem – as it stands I can assure you it most certainly is not. Whatever was argued for in the Orange Book or elsewhere is not party policy, only what is passed by Conference is – a strange concept for those not familiar with internal party democracy I know but hey, we’re a strange lot it seems. Lib Dem party policy, our manifesto, even the Coalition agreement – the latter varied already from the former two – all differ significantly from Lansle’s proposed reforms which is why we’re calling for substantial changes to be made – but here isn’t the place to rehearse those differences, this was a post about AV… You’re right about there being plenty of social liberals within the party – indeed the social liberal forum considers itself a voice of mainstream Lob Dem opinion, working with the leadership to put into practice as many of our policies as we can in government.
@oldpolitics – despite being in difficult circumstances Liberal Democrats are pressing for good progressive policies within this coalition – a coalition brought about by the distorted electoral mathematics of FPTP – and would continue to do so no matter who our partners in government were.
@Jack Roberts: eh…? How exactly was democracy subverted…? That’s just such an odd position to take… Oh and also, please point out where I tell you how to run democracy? Part of the beauty of an open democratic society is that I get to raise an issue, discuss my opinions thereon, and engage with other people on that – none of that is telling you how to run anything.
@Robert: I can understand the frustration with the political process, not least because of the distance between the electorate and those chosen to represent them. That’s precisely why you ought (I’m expressing an opinion here, not telling you how to do anything, see previous comment…) to vote Yes to AV – a small change that will make an enormous difference to how our politics is done, that will bring MPs closer in line with their constituencies, and will go a small way – only a small way – to re-engaging many people with politics…
Dave Citizen
“we need to analyse which result would be favourable to delivering a progressive, centre-left agenda in the long run”
This statement looks decidedly dodgy to me. A voting system is for the long term and, for anyone who believes in democracy, the purpose of changing the system must surely be to make it more democratic. That way, our society reinforces incentives to educate and reward the entire population rather than just the parts of it which have the loudest voices.
So, I will be voting for a change to AV but not because it favours my current political preferences. Even if I thought it might benefit the likes of the BNP or even the super rich, I would still vote for it. This is because I believe the only way to make society better is if all its members have an equal say.
Ash
@ Dr Buch –
“the amount of money that a raised income tax threshold gives to low earners in cash terms may be more for higher earners, but as a percentage of income it’s clearly better for lower earners”
First of all: millions of the very lowest earners, low-income pensioners, unemployed etc. will receive no benefit at all from a raised income tax threshold (though they will, of course, be paying more in VAT).
Secondly: yes, it’s plausible that (say) £500 means twice as much to a low-income family as £1000 means to a high-income family (because it represents twice as high a percentage of their income). But why does that make it ‘progressive’ to give twice as much money to the rich as to the poor? And where is the sense in putting so much money in the pockets of people who benefit so little from it? (Ex hypothesi, that £1000 would have been worth four times as much to the lower-income family.)
Just imagine if Labour had applied a sort of ‘reverse taper’ to tax credits, so that lower earners received a few hundred pounds each year and higher earners a few thousand. Would you regard that as a progressive policy because “as a percentage of income it’s clearly better for lower earners”?
“Whatever was argued for in the Orange Book or elsewhere is not party policy, only what is passed by Conference is”
No, it’s not party policy – I was suggesting it’s a “Lib Dem” policy in the sense that it reflects the values and beliefs of prominent Lib Dems.
Mr. Sensible
I can’t quite believe what I’m reading.
Liberal Democrats have the gall to talk to us about the progressive majority given what they’re propping up?
They tell us to look at what a purely Tory government would look like. The truth is that we have a reasonably good idea already. An increase in Income Tax thresholds which, aside from the arguments about it, is being paid for by ‘Cameron’s VAT Bombshell’ that the Lib Dems helped to detinate. Tuition Fees at £9000 in most, not a minority, but most cases. NHS reforms which, for all the concern on the backbenches Lib Dem ministers are as responsible for. On this, the Lib Dems and the government’s wider ‘Listening Exercise’ will be judged on actions and amendments, not words.
Given Nick Clegg’s record, all this about a ‘Progressive Majority’ is a trick, and I hope the people don’t fall for it and do vote no to AV on Thursday.
Modicum
Labour have to accept their share of the blame for the current regime. After the election the only alternative to a Tory PM was a Labour PM. And it seems there were plenty in the Labour party who preferred to see Cameron enter Downing St.