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.

@HHLimbo

At the moment MPs can get elected when most people actually voted for someone else.

It can be as little as 3 out of 10 voters that actually voted for their MP. In 2/3 constituencies in the UK, most people actually voted for someone else.

John, how can you justify this system? Wouldnt it be better to have an MP that most people prefer?
This is what AV will do for us.

You won?t be surprised I agree with you HHLimbo. First past the Post worked in the 1950s when everyone voted either Conservative or Labour. But now people vote differently and we live in a multi-party system. Our voting system needs an upgrade to reflect that.

@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.

Hi Lindsay

I agree with a great deal of what you say in your question. Australia is almost a permanent coalition. It's two different parties who agree to work together as a coalition.

You see AV whether you like it or not AV is part of PR, it's allowing the individual to have a final say in the result. Though in defence of that they say it doesn't break the link with the constituency. And everyone voting AV would actually prefer PR, even Nick Clegg. And why does he want it, because he wants to be a permanent kingmaker. And that was possible this time under First Past the Post, because he won the 'X-Factor' debate on TV.

I'm definitely for strong political convictions and to be honest, you're likely to find them more in FPTP than those scrabling around for votes from anywhere under AV, and that's where the BNP will profit.

"it's allowing the individual to have a final say in the result" - so basically you're saying that democracy would be great if it wasn't for those pesky voters?

@katieghose

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?

Well the election of our leaders using AV wasn't for decades. I was the first one to participate in one member one vote back in 1994. Another change for Labour in an electoral system. As I said earlier it's horses for courses. And it's not AV as you would have it here because Labour's leadership elections are part of an electoral college including Trade Unions and MPs.

Well our time's more than up, so we're going to have to leave it there. Thanks John and Katie for joining in and for your wholehearted responses and to Mumsnetters for all the great questions.

Well, thanks to Katie for the debate, and all of you that have taken part. I, like Katie I'm sure, would say concentrate on the main issues, ignoring all the slagging off that has gone with it.

I would say I'm against AV because there's a greater possibility of more and more coalitions, which kills off people's participations in manifesto promises, but above all AV is a coalition constitutional fix to strengthen the lords, reduce the commons, fix parliamentary terms, gerrymander constituency boundaries and making it harder for MPs to pass a vote of no confidence. The voter is the loser and the only winner is future kingmakers like Nick Clegg.

Thank you for having me, the questions have been great. If you don't mind business as usual, MPs being elected by a minority, and being taken for granted at election time, vote No. But if you'd like more choice and a bigger say over who speaks in your name in Parliament and see politicians work harder to earn and keep your support, then vote Yes on May 5th. If you'd like to get involved go to www.yestofairervotes.org

I prefer AV over PR:

It means the MP elected is the one with a majority of support from the voters.
I can vote for the party I really want, rather than guessing how everyone else is going to vote.
Extreme minority parties have less chance of getting in, because they wont get 50%.

I'm reluctant to post this because I am aware I've had my fair share of a say but I do want to make a final comment. KG thinks the change will cost little more than the price of a pencil and a piece of paper. Does she honestly think we are so stupid as to believe this?

Personally I think that any politician who thinks that even a small amount of money is better spent on introducing a policy which could be debated at a later time when there is greater need out there in the real country is beyond redemption.

I am worried about prezza - his record seems to be stuck on AV=PR that concerns me in such a senior politician. John, why are you staying confused on this? Is it tactical or are you genuinely confused?

Again it looks like AV wins the argument. Thanks for that, quite enlightening, but worried about the No camp being stuck as I said on AV=PR or AV = coalition - its weird and makes me wonder how many politicians really don't understand the system they are working in.

Thank you Katie and John for coming in, and thank you mumsnet for arranging this :)

Thats true Missing, prezza seems confused about everything, or perhaps he is trying to confuse us?

Its ridiculous that he's resorting to lying about everything, I have really lost respect for him in this chat. And its weird politically because labour would benefit from the fairer AV system. He seems to have lost his way and be stuck in the past, which is sad.

Wouldn't it be fun if the referendum on May 5th was done under the AV system. I'm guessing that 'meh' would win in the first round so it would have to go to a second preference.

Wouldnt it be fun if MPs had to get elected with 50% of the vote. Perhaps they'd try a bit harder rather than bloody hopeless '2 jags' prescott'. What a disgrace!

I actually like John Prescott because he went into politics for the right reasons rather than because it was a 'career choice'

I didnt have much opinion on him before, but he has treated us with complete disrespect, lying about everything, trying to confuse people. His strategy seems to be 'pull the wool over their eyes' (ha! no chance!) and assuming we are a bunch of easily misled idiots. I hate hate hate that sort of politics!

On the other hand I really admire and respect Ed Milliband and David Milliband, they have got good principles and I dont feel they treat people like idiots. They are supporting the fairer AV. Its a shame the labour party is so divided over this.

Would just like to say (now the chat has finished) that I am definitely not pointing and laughing at HRHUrsulaBuffay - it's not my style

HRH? Do you think she's trying to copy me

Im supporting AV purely on principle. It is a more democratic way to run elections, and is better for this country. Most countries have a system of deciding between the leaders in an election, so that everyone gets a final say to elect their leader.. except here.

We can hardly call ourselves a democracy when most people voted against their MP, but they still get in! Decisive it isnt!

I completely forgot about this but glad to see my question was answered.

Have to say that reading it all, my gut feeling was, if the BNP want me to say No, I will definately be saying yes.

Ok, I am rather confused over the BNP argument. From what I can make out, the BNP are saying they would get automatically eliminated under AV if they got the lowest number of votes. Fair enough.
However, under FPTP they also get automatically eliminated and they don't get a second chance.
But under AV, if the BNP were, say position number 4 out of 5 in the first round of voting, they would go through to the next stage, whereupon they might have picked up more second choice votes from those who had the lowest candidate eliminated. Which might then be enough to knock them into third place, pick up more second choice votes from those who had their candidate pushed into 4th place and so forth.
So whilst I don't think AV gives them a particularly strong possibility of getting into power, it has the possibility of giving them more chance than FPTP.

oh giddy its charming that you listen and repeat so nicely, but the boundary changes and the changes in the Lords are happening ANYWAY irrespective of the outcome of the vote so that is a complete red herring (polite) from prezza - (or impolite total utter BS). Its shocking how exposed prescott is making himself by behaving like this .. oh yes.. he's a lord and doesn't need to care...