I long agonised over the merits of voting yes or no in the referendum to decide whether we move to new voting system. I surprised myself by coming out with a firm 'yes'. But it was easy to get confused by the arguments rather than clearly thinking through the pros and cons.
I have heard 'no' campaigners suggest we should oppose AV because people are too stupid to understand it. I have heard 'yes' campaigners argue that we should back AV because it will make MPs less corrupt and claim fewer expenses. Neither arguement is persuasive nor are they based on anything other than rather offensive assumptions about the quality of the electorate and the overwhelming majority of decent, hard-working MPs of whatever party.
I have heard one attractive reason: if David Cameron is against AV, then all progressive and rational democrats should be in favour. It is a reason reinforced by Cameron's Conservatives attitude to representation in general. What other party would advocate the removal of 100 MPs from Parliament as a cost-saving measure and appoint 117 new members of the House of Lords at a cost of £18 million? We are right to distrust any Tory stance on democratic representation. But distrusting Cameron is not in itself a reason to vote 'yes' in the referendum.
There have been fine calculations about which party would benefit from a change in the voting system but this is unpredictable and, in my view, likely to be marginal. And it was this judgement that firstly steered me to the 'no' camp. If a new system did not change the outcome, then why invest energy in changing the system? What persuaded me was my reflections on what changes might occur to British political culture.
Firstly, there is a culture of cynicism against Governments of whatever hue. Scepticism - wanting to be convinced and continuously questioning - is healthy in a democracy. Cynicism - the belief that MPs are all wrong all the time and nothing will convince you otherwise - is bad for democracy. It engenders the belief that nothing can change. And it is a belief that is reinforced by the current electoral system which (usually) sees a party in Government which is not not supported by 60 to 70% of the people.
In the first-past-the-post system, many MPs are elected with just a minority of the votes. We thus have Government by the largest minority. AV would not necessarily change who was in Government, but it gives people a choice: if the their preferred party is not elected, who would be their next choice? It would, therefore, give the public a greater stake in that Government because it would be elected by more than 50% of the electorate.
Secondly, parties would no longer need to focus solely on that very narrow band of the electorate, the so-called swing-voters. How many progressive policies have been ditched, how many thorny issues swept under the carpet in order not to antagonise the small group of voters whose votes determine who is largest minority? Under AV, parties could be (paradoxically) truer to their principles.
They would still need to appeal to a broader electorate but based not on changing their principles to attract swing voters, but on a clear set of principles shared by a wider society. Instead of promoting division, the need to attract second preference votes would encourage parties to emphasise their similarities.
The first-past-the-post system tends to fragment the progressive vote. AV would allow it to come together to combat the forces of reaction. That is why the Conservatives oppose it. That is why decent, rational progressives should support it.
Monday, 25 April 2011
Monday, 18 April 2011
Effective representation - or plain deception?
It is inevitable that during an election campaign political parties seek to represent themselves in the best possible light - and their opponents in the worst. This is perfectly proper because the electorate has to make a choice and parties must clarify that choice by emphasising the differences between them. Anyone who believes in democracy must support the efforts of political parties to make their case effectively. There are two enemies of democracy which rear their heads at this time of the year.
Thr first is the person who poses as one who abhors partisan statements. I have recently been upbraided by such a person who accused me of 'blatant electioneering' for putting forward the Labour Party view in a press release. What are political parties supposed to do in an election campaign - not electioneer? Or not to be blatant about it? This type of person is deadly for democracy. Democracy thrives on debate about what is the right or wrong thing to do for our society. They would kill that debate and substitute for it the non-partisan, bland, 'common sense' approach - which just happens to encapsulate their own opinion. Those who dislike electioneering purvey nothing more than the totalitarianism of the small-minded. They have neither the imaginative competence nor the generosity of spirit which allows for others holding a genuinely-held opinion different from their own.
The second is the politician who oversteps the mark between effective representation and plain deceit. A case in point is that of Iain Lindley, the Tory candidate in Walkden South in Salford, who has issued leaflets throughout his area warning of 'the Labour council's plan for incinerators' there. This was deceit on a grand scale which could only be perpetrated by one who, by his own admission, devours books on how to employ political spin - taking words to the edge of their meaning.
Let us examine his deceit in detail. Firstly, it was the 'Labour council' that was doing something. True, he was referring to a policy of Salford City Council and the city council is Labour-controlled. But the implication of those words was that it was a distinctive Labour policy. What he fails to mention is that the policy commanded all-party support and an identical policy has been adopted by all councils in Greater Manchester irrespective of political control. Only he and one Tory colleague voted against it out of a membership of 60 councillors.
Secondly, Iain Lindley refers to a 'plan'. Now the word 'plan' can mean different things in different contexts. It could be taken to mean a proposal to do something. In this case, I am sure, many would assume there was a proposal to site incinerators on two industrial estates in Walkden. But this was totally untrue. The 'plan' was in fact the Greater Manchester Waste Development Plan Document which contains a set of policies whose purpose is to ensure that there are adequate planning controls in place. This is so that when proposals do come forward from waste disposal companies the local planning authority has the power to make sure they are sited in the appropropiate place. Since such facilities are usually sited on industrial estates (not in residential areas or on greenfield sites) the Waste Plan also sought to increase the protection by specifying what kind of uses would be acceptable in specific locations. It stated categorically that incineration ('conventional thermal treatment') would not be allowed but it would be appropriate for mechanical heat treatment. .
So how did Iain Lindley arrive at his 'incinerator' claim? Well, apart from the half-truth and ambiguity he relied on in the phrase 'the Labour council's plan', he used the technique of stretching a word to its limit by describing 'mechanical heat treatment' as incineration. And it was here he came unstuck through his own ignorance - feigned or otherwise. Mechanical heat treatment is a relatively new 'green' technology which, in layperson's language, involves the baking of waste to destroy bacteria. There is no burning. It reduces the amount of waste that goes to landfill. Incineration does involve burning. It is perplexing that Iain Lindley, as a member of the Fire Authority, does not understand the difference between baking and burning.
This type of deception is the enemy of democracy. Firstly, it breeds cynicism. It seeks to persuade people that politicians don't simply have an alternative view of what is right, but that those we differ from want to inflict deliberate harm on the people. Secondly, it breeds disillusion because if there is one certain thing about this example, had the council been Conservative or Lib Dem controlled, the same policy would have been adopted. And thirdly it destroys trust. How are people expected to believe what politicians say when such transparent deceit is employed?
To give Iain Lindley some credit he has now retreated from the claim that there will be incinerators in Walkden. He now says he just doesn't want waste lorries travelling through Walkden. It is a completely different argument and one that a reasonable person might, without having reflected on the issues, put forward. We are left to wonder how he would deal with waste processing if not on an industrial estate.
Lindley's deception was not exposed by the media nor as the result of some Damascene conversion. It arose from Labour's 'blatant electioneering'. Partisan debate can steer even deceitful Tories away from blatant untruths.
Thr first is the person who poses as one who abhors partisan statements. I have recently been upbraided by such a person who accused me of 'blatant electioneering' for putting forward the Labour Party view in a press release. What are political parties supposed to do in an election campaign - not electioneer? Or not to be blatant about it? This type of person is deadly for democracy. Democracy thrives on debate about what is the right or wrong thing to do for our society. They would kill that debate and substitute for it the non-partisan, bland, 'common sense' approach - which just happens to encapsulate their own opinion. Those who dislike electioneering purvey nothing more than the totalitarianism of the small-minded. They have neither the imaginative competence nor the generosity of spirit which allows for others holding a genuinely-held opinion different from their own.
The second is the politician who oversteps the mark between effective representation and plain deceit. A case in point is that of Iain Lindley, the Tory candidate in Walkden South in Salford, who has issued leaflets throughout his area warning of 'the Labour council's plan for incinerators' there. This was deceit on a grand scale which could only be perpetrated by one who, by his own admission, devours books on how to employ political spin - taking words to the edge of their meaning.
Let us examine his deceit in detail. Firstly, it was the 'Labour council' that was doing something. True, he was referring to a policy of Salford City Council and the city council is Labour-controlled. But the implication of those words was that it was a distinctive Labour policy. What he fails to mention is that the policy commanded all-party support and an identical policy has been adopted by all councils in Greater Manchester irrespective of political control. Only he and one Tory colleague voted against it out of a membership of 60 councillors.
Secondly, Iain Lindley refers to a 'plan'. Now the word 'plan' can mean different things in different contexts. It could be taken to mean a proposal to do something. In this case, I am sure, many would assume there was a proposal to site incinerators on two industrial estates in Walkden. But this was totally untrue. The 'plan' was in fact the Greater Manchester Waste Development Plan Document which contains a set of policies whose purpose is to ensure that there are adequate planning controls in place. This is so that when proposals do come forward from waste disposal companies the local planning authority has the power to make sure they are sited in the appropropiate place. Since such facilities are usually sited on industrial estates (not in residential areas or on greenfield sites) the Waste Plan also sought to increase the protection by specifying what kind of uses would be acceptable in specific locations. It stated categorically that incineration ('conventional thermal treatment') would not be allowed but it would be appropriate for mechanical heat treatment. .
So how did Iain Lindley arrive at his 'incinerator' claim? Well, apart from the half-truth and ambiguity he relied on in the phrase 'the Labour council's plan', he used the technique of stretching a word to its limit by describing 'mechanical heat treatment' as incineration. And it was here he came unstuck through his own ignorance - feigned or otherwise. Mechanical heat treatment is a relatively new 'green' technology which, in layperson's language, involves the baking of waste to destroy bacteria. There is no burning. It reduces the amount of waste that goes to landfill. Incineration does involve burning. It is perplexing that Iain Lindley, as a member of the Fire Authority, does not understand the difference between baking and burning.
This type of deception is the enemy of democracy. Firstly, it breeds cynicism. It seeks to persuade people that politicians don't simply have an alternative view of what is right, but that those we differ from want to inflict deliberate harm on the people. Secondly, it breeds disillusion because if there is one certain thing about this example, had the council been Conservative or Lib Dem controlled, the same policy would have been adopted. And thirdly it destroys trust. How are people expected to believe what politicians say when such transparent deceit is employed?
To give Iain Lindley some credit he has now retreated from the claim that there will be incinerators in Walkden. He now says he just doesn't want waste lorries travelling through Walkden. It is a completely different argument and one that a reasonable person might, without having reflected on the issues, put forward. We are left to wonder how he would deal with waste processing if not on an industrial estate.
Lindley's deception was not exposed by the media nor as the result of some Damascene conversion. It arose from Labour's 'blatant electioneering'. Partisan debate can steer even deceitful Tories away from blatant untruths.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)