Steven Baxter

Patrolling the murkier waters of the mainstream media

No to AV’s new campaign is beyond parody

“Do what we say, or the baby gets it.”

By Steven Baxter Published 22 February 2011 17:04

There are some things in life that seem so far beyond parody – Sarah Palin's continued credibility, for example, or Michael Winner's Twitter feed – that the sceptic in me keeps waiting for the moment when we all get made to look like fools for taking them seriously. But the longer these things keep going, the more we have to face up to the unsettling probability that actually, they're not a mock-up at all. This is what people really think. Not for a laugh, not just to get attention, but because that's just how they are.

And that's what I keep thinking to myself when I see the No to AV campaign's bizarre range of adverts. I keep expecting someone to say: "Doh! Of course that's not a real No to AV advertisement, you big silly! We'd never put out something as crass to make a political point – what do you take us for, a bunch of jerks?" But that doesn't happen. It's a real advert. It's actually earnest, po-faced, this-is-what-we-think campaigning.

If you've not seen it, I'm sorry to have to bring it to your attention, really. It's a picture of a newborn baby, with the shouty slogan "She needs a new cardiac facility NOT an alternative voting system". The implication is, I suppose, that there's a binary choice – either we have a cardiac facility or a new voting system. There's a pair of scales with electoral reform in one pan and the life of a child in the other. In another advert, we're given the choice between bulletproof jackets for our brave boys in Afghanistan, or an alternative voting system.

Hang on a second, though. Does that mean it's an alternative voting system, or bulletproof jackets for soldiers, or a cardiac facility? If so, who gets to choose that bit? (You could argue that we don't, because the voting system is not proportional enough, and that's exactly what the Yes to AV campaign is about; but that's another matter, and I don't really want to get sucked into the vortex on this one.)

The problem with creating either/or choices on subjects that are slightly more complicated than "tea or coffee?" is that the fallaciousness of the argument can be exposed by simply adding another choice. How about electoral reform, or bulletproof jackets, or a cardiac unit, or a free pint of beer for everyone? Does that change anyone's mind?

AV or not AV, that is the question. What I can't understand is why, when there are reasonable and rational answers in the No to AV camp, such as those put forward by my fellow NS blogger David Allen Green the other day, they are eschewed in favour of "Do what we say, or the baby gets it". It's infantile in every sense, and just seems like shock value for the sake of it, the kind of angry argument that assumes voters don't have a clue and see the whole world as a series of either/or choices.

If this is the quality of campaigning we're going to have in the coming days and weeks, it's no wonder that the issue could fail to grasp the public imagination. Come to think of it, I suppose that a distaste for the whole thing is something that would benefit the No campaign – but, having seen what they've come up with thus far, I doubt they're that smart.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: AV referendum No to AV

More from Steven Baxter

View the discussion thread.

68 comments

Mon, 2011-04-11 20:27 — Frederick Robinson (not verified)

Cameron (a) claims AV is undemocratic (b) compares the Election to the Grand National. But a horse-race ENDS when the winner passes the post; Government BEGINS. (This may explain why the NHS etc. is being rushed through: the race ended with the Election result. And if AV is undemocratic, and Elections horse-races, perhaps AV is HIPPOcratic? (By my Oath! declare the doctors....)

Mon, 2011-04-18 22:12 — currynut (not verified)

If it were on the basis of my (negative) reaction to the campaign literature I would be voting "Yes". It is despicable - in the same way as most tabloid journalism - and as described by the many respondents before me.

I could potentially vote for PR in a multi-candidate list scenario, in which the result would be roughly proportional to the first-choice votes cast - but I will not vote for AV.

Start the redistribution with the votes of the most likely fringe/loony candidates? It's not for me, I'm afraid. AV is not obviously fairer than FPTP in my opinion.

I am with many on the left who reject this - and I implore those who think that AV is obviously better to ignore the patronising purple literature and consider again. AV is not a step in the right direction and will kick fairer forms of electoral reform into the long grass for many years to come.

Sat, 2011-02-26 12:41 — Hal (not verified)

The article doesn't even mention the fact that the 250 million claim is entirely fraudulent. Did Steven Baxter swallow its core message?

Part of the alleged 250 million is the cost of the referendum. But that is happening whether the vote is yes or no! And the other part is the false claim that new equipment is required to count the votes. It isn't. I can't believe people like Margaret Beckett are associated with this kind of rubbish.

Tue, 2011-04-26 15:11 — Graham O (not verified)

Forget the personalities and party issues. AV will open the door to further reform. Vote for it. You wont get another chance to stop these politicians with only 35% support (selected by unions or tory panels in the first place.)
As so many previous posters have indicated, the average man in the street might be stupid enough to go along with the NO campaign distorted arguments.... and those behind the capmpaign know it!

Wed, 2011-02-23 19:01 — Dave Gould (not verified)

@Mark

Best argument for AV then is that you can properly punish LibDems, ranking them last instead of equal 2nd as under FPTP.

@Martyn

Correct, a FPTP system would have elected David Davis.

Tue, 2011-03-01 18:42 — chicgoods3

===== http://www.chic-goods.com/ =====

Tue, 2011-02-22 17:24 — moemoe

Those posters assume people are stupid, creating obvious false opposites. New cardiac facility OR AV? Hmm...yes, please, I'll have both!

Tue, 2011-02-22 17:41 — Tamasin McG (not verified)

These adverts aren't created to appeal to people who can think for themselves

Tue, 2011-02-22 17:50 — Damian (not verified)

Of course, the adverts fail to mention the electoral system that gave us the governments that caused these issues in the first place.

Tue, 2011-02-22 17:54 — Baphomet (not verified)

Don't give David Allen Green the credit, his argument, such as it was, was neither reasonable nor rational. He just parroted the same easily-debunked "repeated bites of the cherry" nonsense as David Cameron and No2AV.

Tue, 2011-02-22 17:57 — foowzkaa

I approve of this message...

Fri, 2011-02-25 00:09 — swatantra

I've some disturbing news that some unscrupulous No Campaign individuals may be trying to hack into some Yes members computers. Hope those higher up put a stop to it .

Wed, 2011-02-23 21:19 — Joe (not verified)

@Mark Edwards: No, AV would not lead to permanent power for the LDs. Based on current polling it would lead to a slightly increased number of seats for them. Nowhere near a majority.

I like the idea of AV for selfish reasons. I live in Portsmouth South, which is solidly Lib Dem with Tories second. Under AV It'd be possible to keep the Tories out but not have to vote tactically for the Liberals. The end of tactical voting and the concept of a wasted vote is something that is well overdue.

Wed, 2011-02-23 22:35 — screaminkid (not verified)

Well Mr Green would say that! What is presently in
Place allowed the less represemtative Government mess we have at the moment! One which allows dishonest people like him to make suckers of the general public yet again and puts him in the conflict of interest position he occupies as goveremt advisor to avoid paying taxes& get paid scarce taxpayer
money for it! No to AV just another load of Big Society!!

Wed, 2011-02-23 22:36 — Graeme (not verified)

The concept of a wasted vote seems to apply well to Clegg.

Tue, 2011-02-22 20:07 — Nikki (not verified)

You just know the Daily Mail/Sun/Express readers amongst the population will be swayed by these posters.
All they do is make me believe more strongly in AV.

Wed, 2011-02-23 23:21 — Notexactlyshakespe (not verified)

I was very interested in the possibility of voting reform producing fair votes in a multi-party system. Unfortunately, by entering into such a tight coalition with the Tories, the LibDems have (ironically) regressed to a two-party arrangement for which 'first-past-the-post' is much more suited. The time is therefore not right for change.

Thu, 2011-03-03 14:53 — Paul Z. Temperton (not verified)

Some of these comments are completely irrelevant. How the system might affect this or that party is entirely the wrong question to ask. The right question is, what is best for the voter? The answer is STV, but since that is not on offer, AV is a bit better than what we have at present.

Tue, 2011-02-22 20:28 — mcquade

Not surprised to learn that David Allen Green is still as dumb as I've always found him to be.

Tue, 2011-02-22 20:31 — Colin Beveridge (not verified)

I wonder if the idea is to suppress turnout.

Tue, 2011-02-22 20:37 — KitchentableLFC (not verified)

How about just putting the same pictures on a Barclays Bank poster with "She needs a new cardiac facility so why don't you pay the right amount of fucking corporation tax?"

Tue, 2011-02-22 20:38 — DwightSchrute (not verified)

Has the No2AV campaign hired Karl Rove!?

Tue, 2011-02-22 20:39 — sirenofbrixton (not verified)

This is exactly why ALL political advertising should be banned.

Tue, 2011-02-22 20:59 — Dave C (not verified)

Does anyone know where their £250 million figure comes from? Or did they just pluck a figure from mid-air?

The main cost of AV would seem to be paying the counters for some extra hours work in the two-thirds of constituencies where an absolute majority isn't achieved on the first count. And that happens only once every 4 or 5 years.

Tue, 2011-02-22 20:59 — Marina72 (not verified)

There are valid arguments against AV, so why is this campaign so awful?

Tue, 2011-02-22 20:59 — WestfieldWanderer (not verified)

Wondering why they chose UKIP colours.

Tue, 2011-02-22 21:03 — Chris (not verified)

I think the point being made is do we need this now? When everything is being cut beyond comprehension should £250m or however much be spent on a referendum on something which the majority of people in this country haven't got a clue about. I certainly didn't read it as a 'binary choice,' merely rather blunt examples of how better this money could be spent at this point in time.

Thu, 2011-02-24 01:28 — mdwh

Charliechops1, Mark Edwards: So that says it all for the dumb non-reasons that people come up with against AV.

"AV will most likely mean the Liberals in government permanently."

Completely false nonsense. But even if it was true - since your gripe appears to be them forming a coalition with the Tories, what has that to do with a hypothetical Lib Dem majority?

As for more MPs, AV will mean more Labour MPs too - and Labour are the ones who primarily supported AV, not the Lib Dems. (Not that I have any patience for people who winge about Lib Dems, and then you find that they voted Labour, of all people.)

It really makes no sense. If you really do hate Lib Dems more than Labour and Tories, then AV will give you the chance to express that, rather than only giving your first choice which is all that can be done under FPTP.

Notexactlyshakespe: Despite a coalition, this is hardly equivalent to a two party system. There will still be both Tory and Lib Dem MPs standing, so it is *not* equivalent. You still have significant vote-splitting and tactical voting issues. Indeed, even if it were true that Lib Dems and Tories were now identical, that is precisely the situation where FPTP is flawed, and AV will do better, due to the problems of vote splitting. But despite the coalition, there are still many issues where the parties differ, meaning many people wanting to vote for one, but not the other, party. And there is no reason to think that future Governments will end up with Tory and Lib Dem being in a coalition. In a non-hung Parliament it certainly won't happen. And Labour/Lib Dem coalitions are not ruled out - it's just that that wasn't enough to get a majority after this election.

Tue, 2011-02-22 21:28 — Ricardo1

Can't we just turn the tables around and ask the No to AV campaign why they've spent money on these adverts and not medical equipment for babies?

She needs a new cardiac facility, not a negative advertising campaign, dammit!!

Tue, 2011-02-22 21:32 — Ricardo1

@WestfieldWanderer

It appears both sides have opted for purple!

Probably because it's in between Labour Red and Tory Blue so they can each claim that left wingers and right wingers can support them.

Thu, 2011-02-24 03:12 — valdemar (not verified)

'He needs a flak jacket, not a vote.' That would seem a more honest slogan. Democracy costs money, and the more democratic the system the more it costs. Therefore we need a nice, practical dictatorship. We've already got an unelected head of state and an unelected upper house of parliament, so it's not a big leap. Yep, say No to democracy, and a better-equipped military will be coming to your neighbourhood very soon. Not so many baby cardiac care units, perhaps...

Tue, 2011-02-22 21:34 — Tommo

nothin like a bit of false propaganda to decieve the masses. However, if anyone actually believes these adverts, they are surely stupid? a once in a liftime chance to positively enhance our democratic system is priceless - it's what taxpayers money shoud be spent on.

Tue, 2011-02-22 21:38 — Reginald-Fah-fah

This is my opinion on AV:

http://www.newstatesman.com/polls/2929

Nick Clegg can stick it were the sun don't shine!

Tue, 2011-02-22 21:49 — Edmund in Tokyo (not verified)

Dave C asks where the 250 million number comes from.

First, the cost of the referendum itself. That's 80 million pounds or so. Unfortunately this doesn't work very well in reality because you don't get a refund on the cost of the referendum if you vote "no".

Then, they've decided that every constituency in the country needs to buy expensive vote counting machines. They put the bill for those at about 130 million. Obviously this isn't true - you can count the votes by hand. A lot of constituencies won't even have a second or third round of counting, but the ones that do will only take an extra hour or two.

Tue, 2011-02-22 21:54 — Chris Carrigan (not verified)

The £250m is completely spurious based on the cost of counting machines that no one expects to be needed.

Tue, 2011-02-22 22:07 — Dave Gould (not verified)

Nice article.

Reginald Fah-fah, satire or not, your comment looks suspiciously cut and paste from:
http://www.conservatives.com/Campaigns/No_to_AV.aspx

Tue, 2011-02-22 22:13 — Nodbod (not verified)

I need fewer MPs, I need them not to be paid £300 per day for attending a place of work where they are already rewarded for holding the position. There, I've saved £250 million already. I need political parties to stop prevaricating and get on and do things. I need them to have performance related pay (they seem to like it for everyone else). I need MPs to provide real receipts before claiming expenses. How much have I saved now? I've lost count. As Chris Carrigan points out, employ a few people to count the votes. No expensive counting machines, just a highly flexible workforce, counting, like what they've always done. It ain't difficult, MPs!

Tue, 2011-02-22 22:15 — Nodbod (not verified)

And I forgot, sorry. I need AV. It sort of feels like it might be more democratic.

Tue, 2011-02-22 22:16 — mzztdx1358

These disgusting adverts are based on the mistaken assumption that it will cost £130 million to buy counting machines which Australia, which has AV, has never used.

So that leaves the remaining cost to that of holding a Referendum itself, which No2AV are objecting to, but these are the same people who have called for Referendums for every EU Treaty since the Maastricht Treaty. Matthew Elliot's campaign is a disgrace.

Tue, 2011-02-22 22:22 — Nodbod (not verified)

What is really sickening is that whether there is a referendum or AV, they still will not find money for the protective vests, the baby nursing facility or anything else that is not in the Tory agenda of separating the working, lower and middle classes from their money and redistributing it to the very wealthiest in society. No, they haven't got enough because you and me still have some!

Tue, 2011-02-22 22:24 — Chris Huang-Leaver (not verified)

All anti-AV arguments I have heard so far boil down to three things; I love the Tories, I love David Miliband, or I'm so clever I have found something wrong with AV ignoring the fact the FPTP does it worse. I'm guessing your the later.

Thu, 2011-03-31 21:15 — I want to be a serf

what a disgrace about the yes to vote campaign - just received a flayer with a postal vote attached to it with a bunch of silly arts luvvies who don't know their ar se from their elbow - all they can say is the current system is rubbish and therefore av must be better - if stupidity was a criminal offence these people would get life! what gives them the right to hand out postal votes in any case. This country has completely lost the plot as far as elections go - we must get rid of postal voting immediately - except for disabled people, armed forces, overseas persons and the elderly who cannot reach polling stations. This is disgraceful and I will be complaining to the electoral commission

Thu, 2011-03-31 21:20 — I want to be a serf

p.s. what on earth is a second preference anyway? I would never vote Labour after 13 years of incompetence and destroying this country, LibDems (no comment really), Green? you must be joking! BNP? Don't make me sick! Why should I be forced to give a second preference for someone, or some party, I despise? What will happen to votes where people do not put a second preference? This whole system is ridiculous, stupid and only for the intellectually challenged..

Tue, 2011-02-22 23:09 — T Pollard (not verified)

ok Chris how about this?

I'm pro AV because it will likely put the tories in power a lot more often than labour (based on previous opinion polls).

Conservatives who support FPTP over AV aren't doing it for party reasons. (or you believe that they can't count).

Tue, 2011-02-22 23:28 — Danika in Australia (not verified)

Frankly I'm perplexed that the UK doesn't have preferential voting yet. It's far more representative of the wider spectrum of political belief than 'first past the post'.

Tue, 2011-02-22 23:32 — MJ (not verified)

The funny thing is that the whole campaign is funded by the Taxpayers Alliance. A lobby group who want everyone to pay less tax and cut social services.

So the entire campaign is a barefaced lie because its not like ARE BOYES will get their body armour or our babies will get a new cardiac unit if the Taxpayers Alliance gets their way.

Tue, 2011-02-22 23:44 — Topperfalkon (not verified)

£250 mil is a drop in the ocean compared to approximately £38bn a year being wasted on the ultimately useless Trident system.

Government had the chance to make the sensible cuts and keep the country nice and stable, but they decided against it, clearly.

Wed, 2011-02-23 00:05 — lawrence (not verified)

They should have done the free beer one!

Sun, 2011-04-10 10:17 — jontee

The thing is, many people are stupid. Actually, that's unfair. Ignorant is probably more accurate. Sorry to sound like a middle class intellectual snob (half-right, I'm not middle class) but it's true. My Nan saw the baby ad and I had to spend 10 minutes talking her down. Mind you, I think she only said she understood to shut me up.