The New Statesman endorses the Alternative Vote

Why you should vote Yes to AV on 5 May.

In this week's Easter double issue (out today in London and the rest of the country tomorrow), the New Statesman endorses the Alternative Vote (AV). We argue that AV, though not a proportional system, would represent a significant improvement on first-past-the-post. Here, for Staggers readers, is this week's leading article in full.

Were one founding a new democracy, it is unthinkable that first-past-the-post (FPTP) would be adopted as the electoral system. It penalises small parties, wastes votes and encourages politicians to concentrate their policies on swing voters in marginal seats. FPTP might have been tolerable in 1955, when Labour and the Conservatives won 96 per cent of the vote and 99 per cent of the seats. But it is unfit for a three-party era in which political loyalties are more fluid. In the last election, Labour and the Tories won just 65 per cent of the vote but ended up with 87 per cent of the MPs. It was with good reason that post-apartheid South Africa, the former eastern bloc countries and the young democracies of Latin America all chose to adopt proportional models of voting, rather than FPTP.

On 5 May, for the first time ever, the British people will have a chance to reject FPTP and replace it with the Alternative Vote (AV). AV is not the system that we would have chosen. In some circumstances, it can lead to even more disproportional outcomes than FPTP. As the Jenkins commission on electoral reform noted, had the 1997 election been held under AV, Labour's majority would have swelled from 179 to 245. A genuinely proportional system, of the kind we support, remains the more desirable option.

But AV would represent a significant improvement on FPTP. It would lead to fewer wasted votes, greatly reduce the need for tactical voting and ensure that most MPs are elected with at least 50 per cent of the vote in their constituency. By requiring candidates to win second-preference votes, it would also encourage the parties to engage with all voters. The adoption of AV would enable the creation of a more pluralistic political culture, in which parties emphasise their similarities, rather than merely their differences.

The relentlessly negative approach of the No to AV campaign has only highlighted the paucity of the arguments for FPTP. In their desperation to preserve the status quo, the opponents of reform have claimed that AV would benefit the British National Party, that it would be "too expensive" and that it would prove to be too "confusing" for the electorate. In reality, no system is better at keeping extremists out; AV would not require expensive voting machines; and a system that is already widely used by businesses, charities and trade unions would not prove too complex for the electorate.

AV is not a panacea and, taken alone, it will not repair Britain's broken democracy. Reform of the voting system must be combined with the creation of a fully elected second chamber and the introduction of a written constitution. An increase in the number of directly elected mayors, as Andrew Adonis writes on page 74, is another measure that could address the democratic deficit. But it would be careless to miss an opportunity to reject the voting system that has done so much to discredit the UK's political system.

Those such as the former Social Democratic Party leader David Owen who have argued for a No vote in the hope of securing a more proportional system in the future are playing a dangerous game. As the Chancellor, George Osborne, has said, a No vote on 5 May would close the question of electoral reform "for the foreseeable future".

Not only would FPTP be preserved but it would be strengthened by a victory for the No campaign. A Yes vote, by contrast, would increase the possibility of a subsequent transition to proportional representation (PR). The claim that there is no appetite among the public for reform will have been exposed as a myth.

If the next election results in a hung parliament, the Liberal Democrats will no doubt demand a referendum on PR as the condition of any coalition. But that is a battle for another day. For now, the priority is to deliver a death blow to the unfair, undemocratic and unrepresentative FPTP system. It is for this reason that we encourage progressives of all parties to vote Yes to AV on 5 May.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

In the fight against climate change, humanity has a choice of two futures

We must fight man-made climate change, says Patricia Scotland. 

So here we are at this fork in the road. On one path, the risk of a future of chaos. A new world map with miles and miles of stormy ocean where there were once islands and schools and playgrounds, businesses and life.

A globe with acre after acre of arid desert where there were once fertile mountains and valleys, green vegetation and food.

A path where our existence is defined by pandemics and migration crises, as the earth’s population tries to squeeze into the ever-reducing areas of habitable land.

In this reality, all the arguments about progress and advancement are consigned to the pages of our history, the only agenda item at international meetings is survival.

But the other fork is an alternative path. From the window of an airplane, with wings that exactly resemble a bird’s feathers, views of healthy mangrove as far as the eye can see, miles of luxurious, green canopy, interrupted by shimmering blue oceans.

Nature in all its glory and striking colours, thriving. And when it meets a city it doesn’t mind pausing for a while, because this metropolis is powered by geothermal energy, and the office buildings are made of carbon-eating concrete that behave like trees, and the mall is modelled after a termite mound. Every roof is lined with solar panels.

Two sides of the same coin. The first possibility a dystopian apocalyptic vision; the other a reality, already happening, which may just prevent and reverse the existential threat on this precious planet we call home. 

Last month, representatives of Commonwealth governments met with climate change experts, academics and businesses to launch an alternative pathway to addressing climate change, one that moves beyond adaptation, beyond mitigation, to actually reversing the human effects of climate change. 

It proposes to regenerate the environment by taking excess carbon and carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the atmosphere, where it is poisoning our planet, and putting it back in the soil where belongs.

This initiative, Regenerative Development to Reverse Climate Change, in collaboration with the Cloudburst Foundation, creates the potential for climate change to become an opportunity for innovation and sustainable, eco-friendly economic growth.

Strong support from some of the greatest environmental advocates, including Prince Charles, Mary Robinson and Anote Tong, and powerful presentations from some of the finest minds in the climate change arena, gave us the gift of possibility.

World-renowned experts like Paul Hawken, Thomas Goreau, Janine Benyus and Ben Haggard pointed out that these innovations are already happening. And it is quite simple really. For years man has watched nature and copied nature and nature has always led the way. How else did we make human flight happen if we did not copy God's own 'animal aircraft'?

We see it in other ways too, and the truth is that we already have amazing examples of biomimicry – technology that mimics nature. The eco-friendly Eastgate Centre in Zimbabwe is modelled after termite mounds. In China, the dry, barren plains of the Loess Plateau have been regenerated and restored to healthy green land; and we have similar examples of land regeneration in Rwanda.

What I am saying is that the genius of man, which created technologies that have huge benefits for human beings but detrimental effects on our environment, is the same genius we will employ to help us through mitigation and adaption, and ultimately to reverse climate change and stop global warming. But there is a fundamental problem. We have ecologists, scientists, environmentalists and academics coming up with these solutions working in silos.

So what the Commonwealth began to do last October, when we had our first climate change reversal workshop, is to bring them together. We invited 60 experts who are pioneering these approaches to climate change to Marlborough House. They explored how we can create an integrated plan on climate change reversal.

My goal is to be able to offer every Commonwealth country a package of multidisciplinary, multisectoral solutions to this multidimensional problem. Collaboration and political will are key, because we will need to weave the ideas into our curriculum, insert them in our building codes and business regulations and integrate them into our gender, agricultural and environmental policies.

But how will cash-strapped countries fund this? This is where initiatives like our Climate Finance Access Hub comes in. This programme gives countries the capacity to make successful applications for funding from the Green Fund and other climate change financing mechanisms.

We also have to listen to what the captains of industry are saying. At our meeting last month, Paul Polman, CEO of the mega-consumer goods company Unilever, stressed that when businesses consider investment they take into account sustainable development goals.

If there is no justice and peace, if there is hunger and destitution and if they are operating in cities which are not sustainable, on land that might be reclaimed by the sea or deteriorate into desert conditions, they are investing in a venture that will fail. So the regenerative approach does not have to come at the cost of economic growth. Actually, it will boost investment and development.

The Commonwealth has been at the forefront of the climate change discussion since the 1980s when it first became topical. Our milestones include the Langkawi Declaration in 1989 which commits us to protect the environment, and our leaders' summit in 2015, days before COP21, was instrumental in the landmark Paris Agreement on climate change. But the empirical evidence shows us that even at 1.5 degrees, islands will disappear into the ocean.

This November when governments convene at COP23, we will be posing the question: which pathway will you take? But this is not just a question for governments and organisations, it is a question for every single individual on this earth.

So what are we going to teach our children? More than 60 per cent of the 2.4 billion people in the Commonwealth are under the age of 30. How are we going to harness this exuberance and abundant talent and transform them into innovative solutions? How are we going to run our businesses and manage waste and energy in our homes? What path are you going to take? One that risks our future? Or one that is built on the principle that we can work with nature instead of against it to progress and develop?

Patricia Scotland is Secretary-General of the Commonwealth

0800 7318496