The biggest problem for the pro-AV campaign

Even its own supporters aren’t keen on it.

I've noted before that the biggest problem for the pro-AV campaign is that even its own supporters aren't keen on the system. Ben Bradshaw, for instance, who is now leading a Labour campaign for AV, told the New Statesman last year:

The reason I've never supported AV is that it would have given us an even bigger majority in 1997, and it would have given the Tories an even bigger majority in 1983, and probably 1987 as well.

Now, Alan Johnson, usually one of Labour's strongest supporters of electoral reform, has admitted that he's struggling to get excited about next May's referendum. In an interview with Fabian Review, he said:

I'll support AV, but my heart won't be in it in the same way as if it was the proper thing.

It's difficult to find anyone who's passionate about the system that Nick Clegg memorably described as a "miserable little compromise". At best, the Alternative Vote attracts lukewarm support from those who long for a genuinely proportional voting method. The Electoral Reform Society, for instance, which is bankrolling the Yes campaign, issued a press release just hours before the coalition was formed, pointing out that "AV would prove a very modest reform . . . Significant regional imbalances would remain between main parties."

The referendum won't be won or lost at Westminster, but it must be dispiriting for the Yes camp that so few politicians are prepared to lend it their wholehearted support.

A letter signed by 20 new Labour and Conservative MPs including Nick Boles, Tristram Hunt and Zac Goldsmith today rejects AV on the grounds that it is not a "priority" for the public. It's a hackneyed argument, but it's true that public support for reform has plummeted in recent months.

If the Yes camp is to stand a chance of winning the referendum, it will need to overcome public apathy. With this in mind, it might want to begin with its own supporters.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Twitter/@suttonnick
Show Hide image

From "cockroaches" to campaigns: how the UK press u-turned on the refugee crisis

Harrowing photos of a drowned toddler washed up on a Turkish beach have made the front pages – and changed the attitude of Britain's newspapers.

Contains distressing images.

The UK press has united in urging the government to soften its stance on the record numbers of people migrating to Europe. The reason? A series of distressing photos of the body of a three-year-old Syrian boy, face down in the sand on the Turkish coast.

Most papers decided to run one or more of these pictures on their front pages, accompanying headlines entreating David Cameron to take notice. While your mole wholeheartedly supports this message, it can't help noticing the sudden u-turn executed by certain newspapers on the subject of the refugee crisis.

First, they used to call them "foreigners" and "migrants" (a term that has rapidly lost its neutrality in the reporting of the crisis) who were flooding Europe and on the way to "swarm" the UK. Now they've discovered that these people are victims and refugees who need saving.


 

Photos: Twitter/suttonnick


The Sun went so far as to run a column by Katie Hopkins five months ago in which she referred to them as "cockroaches" and "feral humans". She wrote:

Show me pictures of coffins, show me bodies floating in water, play violins and show me skinny people looking sad. I still don't care. Because in the next minute you'll show me pictures of aggressive young men at Calais, spreading like norovirus on a cruise ship. Make no mistake, these migrants are like cockroaches.

Photo: Twitter

Now the same paper is urging the government not to "flinch" from taking in "desperate people", those in a "life-and-death struggle not of their own making":

Photo: Twitter/@Yorkskillerby


And the Daily Mail still seems confused:

 

It's not really the time for media navel-gazing, but perhaps the papers that have only just realised the refugees' plight can look closer at the language they've been using. It may have contributed to the "dehumanising" effect for which Cameron and co are now being condemned.

I'm a mole, innit.