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”
oldpolitics
“In Australia AV has produced less hung parliaments than there have been in the UK.”
For a very special definition of “hung parliament”, which doesn’t include Parliaments in which no party has an overall majority.
SlashedUK
RT @leftfootfwd: Vote yes for progress and the progressive majority: http://bit.ly/iVIpGG writes @prateekbuch
Ruben de Dios
RT @SlashedUK: RT @leftfootfwd: Vote yes for progress and the progressive majority: http://bit.ly/iVIpGG writes @prateekbuch
SimonB
The merits of a minority tory administration having to find consensus on tackling the financial crisis and then calling another election seem to have been forgotten. While I think AV is a step in the right direction the mention of coalitions is hardly going to encourage people to vote Yes on Thursday.
Prateek Buch
@Ash – (call me Prateek…!) Yes those who don’t pay income tax won’t benefit from the raised threshold – I accept this is an issue, but Universal Credit and a much higher minimum state pension will help. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the Coalition has all its tax priorities right, I just think it’s better than what a minority Tory govt would have done – speaking of which @Simon8, I am sure that had the Lib Dems moved aside, refused to enter a coalition and we’d had Tory minority rule, you would be here slagging off Lib Dems for doing the opposite to what we did – you’d be saying that we shirked responsibility, chickened out etc. not to mention that a minority govt wouldn’t have to seek nearly as much consensus under supply and confidence than under outright coalition.
@Mr. Sensible – couldn’t you equally say that the raised threshold was being paid for by raising capital gains tax – a measure you can be certain Tories on their own wouldn’t have brought in. I am not a fan of raising VAT but I do like to listen to the IFS – who said it wasn’t that bad a move when looked at across a person’s lifetime given the propensity for poorer people to spend more on zero-rated goods. Oh and by the by, lest we forget, Mr. Darling would’ve raised VAT as well – almost certainly without raising the inccome tax threshold I’d guess…
@Modicum – fine analysis. reading many accounts of the coalition negotiations – from all parties – it’s fair to say Labour’s heart was not in governing, not least because the parliamentary maths didn’t stand up. In refusing to make significant concessions to the Lib Dems – as the Tories did to most people’s surprise – they showed they preferred the comfort of opposition to the harsh reality of governing during these dark times.
A general comment. I do not want to create the impression that I support everything this coalition does. If you read my other stuff elsewhere you’ll see I think the current government has its NHS policy wrong, it’s free schools policy and aspects of its deficit reduction programme likewise, as well as making a royal fudge of tuition fees and not going far enough on the green agenda. Being critical of these things doesn’t take away from the fact that Lib Dems are making a positive contribution to government, all that can be asked at this stage. Yes we’d like to see more progressive policies implemented – of course we would, and social liberals on all sides of the partisan divides should work together to see that happen instead of sniping at each other – wouldn’t you agree?