Yes, No, Meh? Alternative Vote Webchat with John Prescott and Katie Ghose, TODAY at 11am

[KatieMumsnet]

Yes, No, Meh? If you haven't already, the time to make your mind up on AV is getting closer, so we've invited John Prescott from the No camp and Katie Ghose from the Yes campaign to answer your questions about the referendum. Join us for a webchat at 11am, tomorrow, Wed 27 April.

Katie Ghose is an experienced campaigner and barrister and chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society. As chair of the Yes to AV campaign, Katie has said 'the alternative vote is a small change that will make a big difference - making MPs work harder to get and stay elected, and giving you more of a say'.

John Prescott was deputy prime minister from 1997 - 2007, is now a life peer and is campaigning against AV, urging people to say No to 'hung parliaments, coalitions, broken promises and a weakening of democracy'.

Whatever your take on AV, hope you can join us to debate the pros and cons.

DamnYouAutocorrect, [cgrin]

Lol at Mumwithadragontattoo.

@thebestisyettocome

What does Katie Ghose have to say about my point that this referendum (whtever the merits or otherwise) is stupidly timed given the financial difficulties we are in.

Does she care that it is diverting money from people in need or is her political agenda more important?

I don't have a view on when the referendum is but it is the first time we are being asked for our say. It's because we are worried about the economy and what happens to jobs, schools and housing that we need to improve the way we elect our politicians.

@katieghose

[quote JohnPrescott]

[quote DuelingFanjo]

Are the BNP ever going to get their feet umder the table under any voting system? Not in most places and if that changes then surely hat change would be seen using AV too?

PR, which is what AV's about strengthens minority parties, you can see that all over Europe and minority parties can change governments overnight by changing their alliance and the electorate have no say. Witness Germany, France, Belgium and even Australia whose last labour govn was helped into power by the Greens and 2 farmers - probably good the farmers and the environment but not much about people power.

[/quote]

AV is not PR - let's debate what's on the table, which is a simple choice between first past the post - which doesn't work anymore and AV which is an upgrade. Australia have had fewer hung Parliaments than us in the last 100 years.
[/quote]

I think Katie's reply shows an ignorance of what has happened in Australia. What's happened is two political parties got together producing almost a permanent coalition in order to keep Labour out, followed by compulsory voting to strengthen their positions. Doesn't that have a familiar ring in Britain?

@JohnPrescott

[quote katieghose]

Hi, a few of you have asked about safe seats. AV will cut the number of safe seats which gives parties more reason to campaign in those areas and talk to us about our concerns. Under first past the post, you only matter to politicians if you happen to be one of the few hundred thousand people living in a very competitive, swing, seat. That's not right - we should all count and have our say. AV will make sure that where ever we live, politicians will have more reason to knock on our doors and talk to us. mumutd - you say you live in a safe Tory seat - whoever you support, AV gives you more of a say because you can express a preference and the same goes for you, Butterpieandcheese under AV your vote will count for more because you pick your favourite but if they are knocked out you still get to express a preference about who should win.

Everyone agrees that over a third of the seats at the last election were MPs elected with over 50% of the vote. Does that mean now, that the argument of working harder will not apply to them. Because they would still be in safe seats under AV?

[/quote]

AV isn't a silver bullet but it will cut the number of safe seats. But even in safe seats politicians won't be able to sit back and rely on their core vote to get or keep their job. They will need to reach out and go beyond their natural supporters to win second preferences.

I'm sorry but you are LOVING having this debate Katie Ghose because it ticks all your political boxes and you will be delighted if you win. You want this and you want it as soon as possible.

You don't care how much it costs. All that matters is that you get your own way. I honestly don't know how you sleep at night.

@katieghose

[quote HHLimbo]

Thanks pram1intheHall, Ill try posting it again:

It seems to me that people often like several parties - I would have been happy with Labour, Lib dem or Green party MPs representing me. But with FPTP I can only vote for one, and so I have to guess who everyone else is likely to vote for.
But it seems Tories generally are only happy with one party, and so their vote is not split.

Do you agree that FPTP splits the voters, denying them their prefered candidate, and letting a minority (but united) party gain power unfairly?

Hi HHLimbo, you've hit the nail on the head. Most of us shop around; we're not as tribal as we were. You can show your support for anyone you think is up to the job. It's not the 1950s - the voting rules need to catch up with the voters. [/quote]

I resent this term tribal. It's usually used by people who suggest they're modernists by calling me a dinosaur. Politics to me is about policies and change. And presumably we have to recognise it was a tribal party that brought in full employment, a welfare service and the NHS. I'm quite proud of that, you don't get that with coalitions.

Even a Blair government gave us full employment, minimum wage and massive improvement in our public services, which this coalition is perusing to undo.

John, what sort of thing do you mean when you say that FPTP could be modified to improve accountability and participation? (And why didn't Labour do that during its 13 years in power?)

Katie, do you think that PR is better than AV?

@Mumwithadragontattoo

I am in favour of electoral reform and would like to see the UK to move to a genuine system of proportional representation. I think most people would consider PR to be the fairest system even if they objected to it for practical reasons such as leading to (weaker) coalition governments or losing the constituency link.

However, I do not support AV as I think it is a difficult hybrid approach which leads to the least worst candidate winning, who is liable to be the most bland.

How should I vote on May 5? Do I vote "yes" to signal my support for electoral reform in general (I don't want anyone to assume that I am happy with the current system). Or do I vote "no" on basis that AV is not in my view an improvement in terms of fairness on FPTP and would probably be more costly to administer?

A No vote will tell politicians we are happy with business as usual. Only a Yes vote can get rid of FPTP which we can agree is the worst system of all. Opposing reform has never opened the door to change.

Gah, think I've missed the boat but just in case..
Hello both

I'm unwilling to change the system if it will result in a greater likelihood of coalition govts. The advantages of FPTP is that when one party wins outright you can hold them to their pledges.

As we've seen, coalitions result in vast amounts of behind the scenes bargaining (pragmatic, but not democratic). We end up with a pick and mix of the various parties' pre-election manifestos, with the blame for broken promises being passed from one team to the other. In the case of The Dave and Nick Show, this works well for the dominant party ("not my fault guv") but ultimately doesn't serve the supporters of the smaller party, who will almost certainly fail to get re-elected, on top of their failure to get key policies into law.

So - do you agree with my characterisation of the democratic failures of coalitions, and is it true that coalition governments would become considerably more likley under AV? I've heard plenty of people tout the Australians as an example of an AV country which has had fewer hung parliaments than the UK - but in Australia, voting is compulsory and this, presumably, has a considerable impact. So please try and avoid that example if poss ...

I'm also interested in the opprobrium heaped on those on both sides of the argument who have been honest about voting for the system which is most likely to get their party in government. Ultimately, I believe Labour policies are the most equitable for the country as a whole. This conviction, for me, supersedes all other concerns - particularly when it's by no means clear that a Yes vote will be definitively fairer. I'd expect anyone with strong political convictions to feel the same, and mistrust those who claim to be motivated by altruism - though I'd like to hear where you stand.

@thebestisyettocome Lots of us (me included) think voting reform is incredibly important. The money spent on the referendum is peanuts in a the national context, and better politics would have the long-term effectr of locking out right-wing wingnuts like Clegg and Cam, so it's all good.

@JohnPrescott

Katie, do you think that PR is better than AV?

A week away and I'm sorry to see that the No campaign still doesn't want to debate the arguments or explain why they want to keep FPTP. We have a simple choice on May 5th between FPTP and AV and I think that AV gives voters a better deal.

@Pram1nTheHall

John, what sort of thing do you mean when you say that FPTP could be modified to improve accountability and participation? (And why didn't Labour do that during its 13 years in power?)

We made many changes to the voting system in Labour's 13 years. There was devolution in Scotland and Wales. Referendum in regional government, and expansion to postal voting. It was horses for courses. And even I was elected under a form of AV for deputy leader of the Labour Party.

AV is clearly, as Nick Clegg said a 'miserable little compromise'. Yes it was, a coalition one.

PS It has produced coalitions in Scotland and Wales, I certainly don't want for the UK government.

Do you agree that FPTP splits the voters, denying them their prefered candidate, and letting a minority (but united) party gain power unfairly?"

"you've hit the nail on the head."

Hi Katie, could we focus on this for the campaign? Something like this video? It explains AV really well in a non-political way,

Its really good to see you here today :)

what is anyone's problem with compulsory voting? we just had a compulsory census which is far more intrusive..

@thebestisyettocome

I'm sorry but you are LOVING having this debate Katie Ghose because it ticks all your political boxes and you will be delighted if you win. You want this and you want it as soon as possible.

You don't care how much it costs. All that matters is that you get your own way. I honestly don't know how you sleep at night.

Changing to AV will cost no more than pencil and paper. The No campaign have invented a price tag in place of an argument in favour of FPTP. I'm supporting AV because I think it will give us more choice and say over who gets a job in Parliament and mean that politicians have to work harder to earn and keep our support.

@katieghose

[quote JohnPrescott]

Katie, do you think that PR is better than AV?

A week away and I'm sorry to see that the No campaign still doesn't want to debate the arguments or explain why they want to keep FPTP. We have a simple choice on May 5th between FPTP and AV and I think that AV gives voters a better deal.

[/quote]

But do you not except that PR for the individual voter is better in having influence over who's elected rather than AV.

Even the Jenkin's commission came to that conclusion.

I think having a debate about electoral reform is incredibely important. I can certainly see that there is some merit to what the Yes campaign are saying.

My point was that I am disgusted that this campaign is being held now. There is, imho, no need for urgent change. The reason why this has been pushed to the front of our political agenda is because Clegg wants to cling on to the power he is so obviously enjoying having.

This is not the time to have this debate. Perhaps when we are all a little more financialy steady, then yes but not now. The people who are pushing for it are utterly selfish.

That was to Praminthehall btw.

@LindsayWagner

Gah, think I've missed the boat but just in case..
Hello both

I'm unwilling to change the system if it will result in a greater likelihood of coalition govts. The advantages of FPTP is that when one party wins outright you can hold them to their pledges.

As we've seen, coalitions result in vast amounts of behind the scenes bargaining (pragmatic, but not democratic). We end up with a pick and mix of the various parties' pre-election manifestos, with the blame for broken promises being passed from one team to the other. In the case of The Dave and Nick Show, this works well for the dominant party ("not my fault guv") but ultimately doesn't serve the supporters of the smaller party, who will almost certainly fail to get re-elected, on top of their failure to get key policies into law.

So - do you agree with my characterisation of the democratic failures of coalitions, and is it true that coalition governments would become considerably more likley under AV? I've heard plenty of people tout the Australians as an example of an AV country which has had fewer hung parliaments than the UK - but in Australia, voting is compulsory and this, presumably, has a considerable impact. So please try and avoid that example if poss ...

I'm also interested in the opprobrium heaped on those on both sides of the argument who have been honest about voting for the system which is most likely to get their party in government. Ultimately, I believe Labour policies are the most equitable for the country as a whole. This conviction, for me, supersedes all other concerns - particularly when it's by no means clear that a Yes vote will be definitively fairer. I'd expect anyone with strong political convictions to feel the same, and mistrust those who claim to be motivated by altruism - though I'd like to hear where you stand.

AV doesn't lead to more coalitions. It does give voters more say and puts us back in the driving seat. You may have noticed that AV featured in the last Labour manifesto for a reason! And when Ed Miliband has spoken up for AV - he has said that it will help the progressive majority.

I

John says that FPTP results in more decisive governments - so why do we have a coalition now, then?
And who is to say how people in "sage" seats would vote under AV? They could vote for someone else entirely if they no longer they would have to vote tactically to keep out a candidate they are really opposed to.
I can't understand the argument of rejecting AV because it's not "good enough". It's a step in the right direction and if you vote No, you won't be asked your opinion again - it'll be FPTP for a long time yet. Personally I really object to a system which produces winners who have not got the overall support of their constituency. Who exactly are they representing? A privileged few who happen to live in "safe" seats where they support the winner. It's not good enough.

John, its very cheeky of you to keep moaning on about coalitions. Guess how this coalition was elected!?

There is a coalition because people want to vote for more than 2 parties. FPTP unfairly penalises people for this. AV adjusts the system so that people are not penalised.

A question for John - why are you opposed to a tried and tested system you've used to elect Labour leaders for decades? Why is it good enough for you but not good enough for us?