Pragmatism or principle?

As the voting system referendum approaches – and as the debate continues to focus on party politics rather than the issue at stake – Sam Macrory speaks to some of the prominent figures in the two camps.

The Romans may have held one as early as the eighth century. The Swiss take part in ten a year on average. The late Conservative MP Julian Critchley derided them as the form of plebiscitary democracy favoured by Hitler and Mussolini. And on May 5, one will take place across the United Kingdom for only the second time.

But if you weren’t immersed in the tearoom talk of Westminster and your diary didn’t work around the think-tank lecture circuit, then would you know that a national referendum, the first since British people voted to stay in the EEC in 1975, is going to be held on May 5? And if you did, would you feel confident that you understood the issues at stake?

The respective merits and failings of First Past the Post (FPTP) and the Alternative Vote (AV) have been covered in speeches from prime minister David Cameron (supporting FPTP) and his Liberal Democrat deputy Nick Clegg (supporting AV). But the referendum has hardly gripped the national consciousness.

The launches of both campaigns received a lukewarm response in the media, and even though the last seven days have seen a cross-party Yes to AV event, repeated speeches in favour of FPTP from the Conservative Party’s chairman Baroness Warsi, and in turn an impassioned rebuttal from Liberal Democrat cabinet minister Chris Huhne, coverage was minimal and the Westminster bubble remained unburst.

This Monday, however, an Electoral Commission booklet, setting out the options on the table, will be delivered to every household in Great Britain – and next week, TV broadcasts from both sides are aired. At last, a chance to weigh up the options? Perhaps not. A choice on merit risks being drowned out as the long-term consequences, and equity or inequity of AV, are overshadowed by the shorter-term fallout.

Will this be a referendum on Clegg’s popularity? Is Labour leader Ed Miliband, who supports AV, politically astute to refuse to work alongside the Lib Dem leader? Does David Cameron really care either way? To political junkies at least, these are compelling questions, but they fail to get to the crux of the matter which should, surely, be shaping the public’s decision.

Instead, four key factors threaten to blur the longer-term issues of the debate. Firstly, both sides say the contest is being skewed by the other’s disproportionate financial advantage. A Yes campaign insider says their projected £4m war-chest has ended up closer to half that amount, with the No campaign’s coffers swollen by the backing
of wealthy Conservative Party donors.

“They will outspend us by a ratio of five to one,” says Ben Bradshaw, the former cabinet minister who is now directing Labour’s Yes campaign. “The No campaign has no people on the ground, but a lot of money for adverts and billboard posters.” Expect the posters, with simple but effective graphics and messages – now focusing on the one-person, one-vote principle of FPTP rather than the supposed cost of the new system – to be a regular feature on your daily commute.

However, Margaret Beckett, a former cabinet colleague of Bradshaw’s and now chairman of Labour’s No campaign, denies that the No campaign is well-resourced: “The Yes campaign is incredibly well-funded. We have had to raise money on the hoof – we’re not well funded at all.”

Beckett and Bradshaw (see panel) highlight the second factor: Labour’s split. With Lib Dems backing a Yes vote and most Tories a No, how Labour MPs and members campaign is crucial. With no money and few resources, says a Yes source, there is a huge reliance on Labour to back the campaign. Instead, they say, many Labour MPs are sitting out the contest, weighing up whether to back their leader or stick two fingers up at Nick Clegg. Labour support is “absolutely crucial”, agrees Bradshaw. “Most Labour MPs support a change, and getting them out is a challenge we face. It’s not just in the country’s interests, it’s in the interests of our party and the progressive left.”

A third factor is, unavoidably, Clegg himself. The man who cheered the referendum as a coalition gain is now too toxic to touch it, but should the No camp be basing its campaign on Clegg’s obvious unpopularity? For the Yes campaign, Tim Farron and Charles Kennedy are the only Lib Dem MPs deemed acceptable enough to speak out for AV, with both appearing at last week’s cross-party event alongside Ed Miliband, Tessa Jowell, Baroness Williams, Caroline Lucas and John Denham. “The Fairer Votes referendum must not be about politicians. This is the chance for people to take more power and for politicians to have less,” Tim Farron told The House Magazine.

How the Yes team operates is worth noting. At the top level, Paul Sinclair and Patrick Loughlin, former aides to Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson respectively, work closely with John Sharkey, a close adviser to Nick Clegg. However, at the grass roots the Liberal Democrats on the campaign have grumbled that phones have taken the place of the humble leaflet; a compromise – in the shape of 12 million leaflets – has been found.

A fourth problem is the myriad of groups which throw out press releases, claim and counter claim. While the Yes2AV team insists it is cross-party, and the No2AV campaign (run by Matthew Elliott, on secondment from the Taxpayer’s Alliance), does the same, the picture is more complicated. Beneath that are the Labour Yes and No campaigns – home to Bradshaw and Beckett – and then a Conservative Party No and, incredibly, Yes campaign.

The latter is currently backed in public by just one councillor and a Welsh Assembly member, but The House Magazine has identified Tory MP David Mowat as an AV-supporter, while Yes2AV insiders are hopeful that a handful of cabinet ministers – the notably noncommittal Michael Gove and former SDP member Greg Clark have been mooted – may join the campaign if victory seems possible.

But whichever voting system you believe in, there is a real danger that this historic event will pass with little thought for its consequences. For how the vote falls could shut down attempts at reform for a generation, or perhaps be just a staging post.

If AV is the “miserable little compromise” once dismissed by Nick Clegg, then might its followers, if successful, want more? “I wish the coalition had given people more options, but we are where we are,” says Bradshaw, hinting at only temporary satisfaction. Farron, who previously described the referendum as the ‘semi final’ en route to full PR, joked about the “STV ultras” at last week’s event and admitted that a further push for reform could follow a Yes vote.

Beckett rings the alarm bell. “Supporters of AV don’t like it – it’s the thin end of the wedge.” Speaking at last week’s event, Charles Kennedy made clear the Rubicon ahead: “Nobody, once you move away from [FPTP], says let’s go back.” For the first time in 36 years, the choice of direction rests with people, not politicians. The referendum on May 5 poses a question with momentous consequences for the future of British politics. With four weeks until voting day, it remains a question which risks being answered with the politics of the present at its core.

Ben Bradshaw
Director, Labour Yes2AV

Why has it been so hard to generate support?

I’ve actually found a great deal of interest, given that we’re four weeks away. Labour Party meetings have been extremely well attended. Given Libya and the march against the cuts, I don’t think it’s surprising that other issues have dominated the mainstream media. Most of the press are against change and publish stories which support the No argument.

How can the debate move from politicians to the public?

AV serves the public. FPTP serves the Establishment. We have tried very hard to ensure that we have people out there who are not long-serving politicians or people associated with the status quo. We have a grassroots campaign, phone banks, and community activists. Our campaign is Obama-esque. We are working below the radar to galvanise people.

Why didn’t Labour act on this in its 13 years in power?

I very much regret that we didn’t act on the Jenkins report. I understand the reasons, but we had it in our manifesto.

Are you confident?

I am confident we can win, but it will be tough. We have a real fight on our hands.

Margaret Beckett
President, No2AV

Why has it been so hard to generate nationwide interest in the referendum?

I don’t think it’s deliberate, and I always think it’s important for people to be aware when there are decisions which are important. The media are not going to pay attention until the vote is nearer.

Is it right that the coverage seems to be focusing on Nick Clegg’s role?

I’m not sure it’s much of a distraction, but the important thing is for people to know that there is a vote. If [Clegg’s role] is the way into that, then so be it.

How decisive will the Labour vote be?

There is a different view in every party, but I’m not seeing many colleagues out there campaigning for a Yes vote. I haven’t seen a lot of evidence. We can’t get people from the Yes campaign to do events with us.

How important is this vote?

If the Yes campaign wins, it will be forever. It will always be in the small parties’ interests to make sure there is no going back. If the No campaign wins, then it would put the arguments to bed for a while.

Tim Farron
President, Liberal Democrats

Why has it been so hard to generate nationwide interest?

It is clear that people are very interested in the problems that electoral reform will change such as the expenses scandal, the majority of people’s voices not being heard, and how distant politics currently seems from everyday life. Our job is to convince people that fairer votes is something that will go a long way to being a solution to those problems.

Do the public see this as a Lib Dem hobby horse?

Our campaign crosses political boundaries and has the backing of most Labour supporters, the Green Party, Plaid Cymru, the SNP and Ukip. In fact, the only people who aren’t supporting the Yes campaign are the BNP and the Tories. The Lib Dems are not exclusively identified as the face of the Yes campaign.

Would AV help bring the progressive left together?

Fairer votes puts an end to tactical voting. It means you no longer have to vote for a party you don’t mind in order to keep out a party you don’t like. It also means that the damage that the divisions Ed Miliband talks about become redundant.

Matthew Elliott
Campaign director, No2AV

Who is better funded?

We’ve raised slightly less than the Yes campaign, as it’s always a struggle to get people excited about the status quo. They have two big paymasters in the Joseph Rowntree Trust and the Electoral Reform Society, and we have had to raise funds from afresh. We’ll have fewer resources – they will end up having double what we do.

What does the referendum result mean for the future of electoral reform?

There would definitely be a push towards PR in future coalition agreements if the Yes vote won. A No vote would kick it into touch for a generation.

Are you confident?

The history of referendums is that if both sides are levelpegging when they enter the short campaign – as we are – then the don’t-know voters tend to fall down on the No side. So we have a good chance.

Have your say...

Please enter your comments below.

Name

Your e-mail address

Listen to audio version

Please type in the letters or numbers shown above (case sensitive)