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.

Getty
Show Hide image

Brexit would jeopardise the rights of working women

Europe isn’t perfect, but without it millions of women and millions of trade unionists would be at risk of Tory deregulation. 

One of the most important arguments in favour of staying in the EU is the protections that membership affords working people.

Whether it’s equal rights for part-time workers, the agency workers directive or limits on the length of the working week, we all owe the European Union and its Social Charter – campaigned for by a generation of trade unionists from across the continent – a great deal.

Outside of Europe British workers would find themselves worse off both in terms of their pay packets and the rights that they rely on. Add to that the reality that outside the EU risks being a place with lower public spending thanks to a troubled economy and rising privatisation of our public services, you can understand why the vast majority of British trade unions are recommending that their members vote to remain.

And for working women, the choice is starker still, because women have that much more to lose when rights and protections are stripped from the workplace.

Just think what EU law guarantees for all working people through the social charter, and how losing these rights (and putting the Brexit bunch in charge) would impact on things we’ve all come to rely on like maternity pay and guaranteed holiday pay.

Think about how much harder the struggle for equal pay will be if it’s not underpinned by EU law.

Think about how a Boris Johnson led Tory government – outside of Europe, on the fringes of global influence and under increasing pressure from UKIP to withdraw even further from the modern world – would attack your working conditions.

The Tory right – fresh from dragging our country out of Europe and away from regulations that help keep us safe at work aren’t going to stop there. Their next port of call will be other sources of what they deem “red tape” – like equal rights legislation that helps ensure women have all the same opportunities afforded to their male colleagues.

That’s something that matters to me as a trade unionist and as a woman.

It’s something that matters to me as Assistant General Secretary of a union with more than a million female members – UNISON, the biggest membership organisation for women in the country.

It matters to me as President of the TUC – when most trade unionists are women and when we have the first female TUC General Secretary in Frances O’Grady.

But most of all it matters to me because of the stories of all of the women I’ve met and am proud to represent who benefit every single day from Europe-wide protection of their rights.

What we face is the risk of losing those rights to a cynical and desperate campaign based around false promises and rhetoric from the Brexiteers. What we need in this campaign is some straightforward honesty. So here’s my position in a single sentence: Europe isn’t perfect, but without it millions of women and millions of trade unionists would be at risk.

I won’t stand for that. Neither should you. And neither should they either.

Liz Snape is Assistant General Secretary of UNISON and President of the TUC