Fascinating article: how the NO campaign won

[longfingernails]

Yes, it's from ConservativeHome, and quite long, but it is very informative. It is really interesting to see how the key party political players in the NO to AV campaign were Labour - in particular ex-MPs Jane Kennedy and Joan Ryan.

And it is fascinating that for all the talk of a "progressive majority", the NO campaign had Labour and Tory sources working, phonebanking and strategising side-by-side, whereas the YES luvvies only met twice a week.

conservativehome.blogs.com/avstory/2011/05/the-story-of-the-av-campaign.html

Maybe the most fascinating nugget was that the Labour NO threatened to walk out unless Clegg was personally targeted. The Tories didn't want to target Clegg.

The Lib Dems going round screaming betrayal should take note.

I think that's a very convenient explanation .... diverting flak for the dubious campaign claims and taking credit for the win at the same time? It's just too pat. The 'yes' campaign weren't well-organised, weren't 100% behind AV and ultimately didn't make a compelling case. The 'no' campaign won because people basically don't like change and either weren't convinced by the alternative or rallied to support the PM. Spinning to make it more than it was doesn't add anything.

The no campaign won because it was the right decision.....not bacuse people not like change!

I think NO was the right decision but ultimately it's going to be spun the wrong way. It was a no to AV because there are better systems (some include FPTP in that) not a flat out no to change.

Badly worded IMO. It should have been in 2 parts - do you want change? Do you want that change to be AV?

When I say people don't like change, it's generally true. It doesn't mean that change never happens but it means that those who are campaigning for change are at a natural disadvantage and therefore have to make their case much more forcefully than those who are campaigning for the status quo.

And as for the referendum being badly worded, that's the root problem of every referendum. They have to be phrased to result in a yes/no answer and there is no place for nuanced definitions.

chil, could we not have had a 3rd question though? I want change, but not AV. I feel mightily peeved that we have funded this referendum and still not been given the opportunity to fully express our opinion.

No. Human psychology means more than a yes/no is a very bad idea.

If you give three choices on a referendum, people almost always go for the middle one.

I strongly suspect that Alec Salmond will do this on the independence referendum, because he would be too scared of the consequences of a NO vote. So the three options will be the status quo, some sort of hyper-devolution, and full independence. He will get hyper-devolution that way.

Referenda are always an 'accept' or 'reject', which is why they are not used very often and are generally regarded as a crude way to judge opinion. It wasn't a complete waste of time and money - at least the subject of voting reform got a reasonable airing - but, if we really want voting reform in the future, we either have to petition our chosen party to make it a policy pledge or we have to vote into controlling power a party that has voting reform high on their agenda. The LDs always had voting reform as their main aim but failed to make the referendum about PR. By contrast the SNP, having controlling power in the Scottish assembly, makes the independence question a very live issue.

I think the Yes campaign was doomed from the moment Clegg called it a "miserable little compromise".

I think we should have more and more referenda/referendums (I am never sure of the right word!) - and far more executively elected positions.

Should Britain continue to sign up to the judgments of the ECHR?
Should we ban the burka?
Which countries should we give international aid to?
Should we bring back hanging?

I imagine that on at least two of those (burka, hanging) the British public would vote in a way I don't like. So what? Let the people decide.

Elect the local bureaucrats who will ration the NHS. Elect local police commissioners. Elect mayors.

In general, if anything gets 5m signatures or so, have a referendum on it.

Give power to the people. Representative democracy isn't nearly representative enough.

Hassled, I think you could be right.

Chil, the whole process was worse than a waste of time in my opinion, it's almost certainly put the block on real democratic electoral reform for a generation.

"Give power to the people."

I think 'the people' expect to elect representatives to do a job. If we don't like the way they do it the answer is to vote them out, not insist on doing their job for them. Sometimes the right or smart thing to do is not popular or easy and it takes leadership & expertise to motivate that and take things forward.

The NHS being a case in point. I don't think most people enjoy the benefits of the NHS and understand 'free at the point of need' but could not, hand on heart, say they know the details of how the NHS is run today. So asking them how it should be run in future and by whom could be problematic.

Sorry that should have been 'I do think most people enjoy the benefits of the NHS....'

No was the right decision. LFN thanks for posting such interesting articles. I enjoyed the one on Clegg. It was obvious he would be targeted from all sides. The article said that if AV were in, Clegg could be kingmaker again, and after his broken promises I don't think the public were going to reward him with that.