I think I missed this first time round. For anyone else who did too, the full article and links are on the Glasgow Media Group site.
National Debt Initiative - Guardian article on one-off tax on the richest 10% (16.08.10)
Can we urge those who are interested in the proposal to do all they can to push the arguments and figures contained in the article in to the media. This means writing letters, texting, tweeting and e-mailing news programmes and the press. Each week there are new stories on the cuts, their effects on the poor and public support for the Government's economic strategies, yet the elephant size results of the poll featured in the Guardian article show that 74% off the population would favour a one off tax one the wealthiest 6million people. The silence on this is being imposed by the media itself. They are well aware of the figures. The BBC's Today programme asked us to send them these the day before the Guardian article appeared. The Sunday Times and The Independent on Sunday also had the article but rejected covering it. It is important to break this silence, so please do all you can.
You Gov Poll Results on Attitudes to Paying off the National Debt (Including Tax on Richest 10%) (June 2010)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/15/deficit-crisis-tax-the-rich
The results of the poll and the article itself are available to read and download by clicking on the links above. To date, the article has generated over 550 responses in the paper's Comment is Free section. The figures on wealth quoted come from the Government website and can be viewed at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/wealth1209.pdf.
One criticism made in the responses on the Guardian website is that 'the rich won't allow/accept it' but the poll results show the richest groups slightly more in favour than the low income groups. We asked informally some wealthy people why this might be so, and concern for social order was one reason, another that if the government finances were stabilised , then 'the stock market would go through the roof' and they would get their 20% back anyway. Also the plan does not necessitate immediate payment. It is about taking liability for the debt and would be payed off as a form of death duty or through low interest payments. The key issue is to take wealth which is effectively dead and trapped in the higher reaches of an inflated property market and use it for investment in areas such as new technologies, research and proper funding of centres of excellence as well as meeting key social needs. This is nothing to do with funding incompetent spending, but about an efficient use of national wealth for the benefit of the whole population.
30 August 2010
28 August 2010
Cutting NHS Direct - Wrong, Stupid and a False Economy
"Roughly 14,000 people a day call NHS Direct for medical advice, with the service costing £123m a year to run."
We rang NHS Direct about our son yesterday. They provided quick, appropriate and accurate medical advice. Since he was born, we've used the service a couple of times, once in the middle of the night. Without NHS Direct we would undoubtedly have used a walk in centre or had to spend a morning waiting for an emergency appointment at our local GP.
We'll hear time and again in the next few weeks about how GPs think NHS Direct isn't delivering value for money, but there are strong arguments to the contrary. That is my own personal experience and I support the argument put by Dr Brian Gaffney arguing that NHS Direct saves health services £162 million in efficiencies.
We rang NHS Direct about our son yesterday. They provided quick, appropriate and accurate medical advice. Since he was born, we've used the service a couple of times, once in the middle of the night. Without NHS Direct we would undoubtedly have used a walk in centre or had to spend a morning waiting for an emergency appointment at our local GP.
We'll hear time and again in the next few weeks about how GPs think NHS Direct isn't delivering value for money, but there are strong arguments to the contrary. That is my own personal experience and I support the argument put by Dr Brian Gaffney arguing that NHS Direct saves health services £162 million in efficiencies.
24 August 2010
Defections
Firstly, welcome to Cllr Robert Vint who has left the Liberal Democrats to join the Greens in Totnes.
Secondly, here in Liverpool Ian Jobling has left the Lib Dems and crossed the floor to the ruling Labour Party. David Bartlett's blog reports here.
Secondly, here in Liverpool Ian Jobling has left the Lib Dems and crossed the floor to the ruling Labour Party. David Bartlett's blog reports here.
23 August 2010
Advance Australia Greens - AV helps deliver a breakthrough
Adam Bandt has been elected to represent Melbourne in the House of Representatives. This is an incredible breakthrough moment for our sister party. There were Green second places in Batman and Grayndler, with close misses in Denison and Sydney. In the Senate, it looks like the Greens will hold 9 seats, meaning that from July 2011 (when the new Senate sits) they will hold the balance of power.
With all the first preference votes counted in Melbourne, Labor held the lead:
Labor 39.5%
Green 36.1%
Once the preferences were transferred, the Greens overtook Labor to win 56% to 44% with some counting still not yet finished.
This got me thinking. What would AV have done for us in Brighton Pavilion in 2010?
"Primary vote" (FPTP)
Greens 31%
Labour 29%
Tory 24%
Lib Dem 14%
Others 2%
The bulk of the "others" vote was UKIP, so we could for arguments sake assume they all chose the Conservatives as a second choice. It isn't enough for them to overtake Labour into 2nd place. Where would Lib Dem preferences have gone? I'd argue strongly that a lot of people may have voted Lib Dem during Cleggmania, but would have preferenced the Greens. However the key point here to note is that in order for the Greens not to have made the top two in Pavilion, out of that 14% of the electorate, the Tories would have had to get say 8% with Labour and Greens getting just 3% each. Not realistic, not in Brighton.
Under AV, it would have been a Green v Labour run off, with an unpopular Labour candidate (not the incumbent) against a dynamic and new Green challenger, just like in Melbourne. We would have won by a much bigger margin in 2010. The more interesting discussion is whether AV would have enabled us to make the breakthrough much earlier on. Let's take a look at the 2005 Pavilion result:
Labour 35%
Tories 24%
Greens 22%
Lib Dems 17%
Others 2%
UKIP only got 1% back then, so we add that to the Conservative total. Then on the Lib Dems preference allocation, the Greens would have needed 6% (Labour 8% and Tories 3% as an example) to get into second place in the runoff. It is conceivable under AV that we would have been in a Labour v Greens contest five years earlier, especially if you consider that both the Lib Dems and Greens were against the Iraq War, and for many people that was a heavy influence on their voting choice. Where would the bulk of Tory preferences have gone? To Labour? Doubtful. Probably to the Greens. In my opinion we'd have won and made a breakthrough five years earlier under an AV system using these results.
Oh hang on a minute though, I'm being awfully "conservative" and overlooking a basic point. How many people would have voted Green as a first choice, safe in the knowledge that their second choice for Labour or the Lib Dems would "keep the Tories out" in both 2010 and 2005. A lot more.
Why Respect should be backing AV
Birmingham Hall Green result
Labour 33%
Respect 25.1%
Lib Dem 24.6%
Tories 15%
Others 2%
How would Tory preferences have been reallocated? I believe that if Salma Yaqoob was the candidate seen as best able to beat Labour, she would have attracted a decent amount of support even from the Conservatives. However, it is also reasonable to argue that more Tories would put their second choice vote as Lib Dem. Again though, how many reluctant Labour (or Lib Dem) voters would have chosen Salma Yaqoob as their first choice safe in the knowledge that their second preferences would have gone back to Labour (or the Lib Dems)? Given these two factors, I believe you would have a Labour v Respect runoff for the seat. As we've seen from Australia, when it is about defeating an incumbent and opposition MP, even right wing protest votes will swing behind left of Labo(u)r challengers.
I will attach the health warning to this. Australian voters have a choice of above and below the line voting. Many choose to vote above the line, and they accept preference allocation in the way their party decides is best for them. That isn't what we are going to be offered in an AV referendum. Our voters are going to have to rank candidates in the way they see fit, and that will be slightly different.
With all the first preference votes counted in Melbourne, Labor held the lead:
Labor 39.5%
Green 36.1%
Once the preferences were transferred, the Greens overtook Labor to win 56% to 44% with some counting still not yet finished.
This got me thinking. What would AV have done for us in Brighton Pavilion in 2010?
"Primary vote" (FPTP)
Greens 31%
Labour 29%
Tory 24%
Lib Dem 14%
Others 2%
The bulk of the "others" vote was UKIP, so we could for arguments sake assume they all chose the Conservatives as a second choice. It isn't enough for them to overtake Labour into 2nd place. Where would Lib Dem preferences have gone? I'd argue strongly that a lot of people may have voted Lib Dem during Cleggmania, but would have preferenced the Greens. However the key point here to note is that in order for the Greens not to have made the top two in Pavilion, out of that 14% of the electorate, the Tories would have had to get say 8% with Labour and Greens getting just 3% each. Not realistic, not in Brighton.
Under AV, it would have been a Green v Labour run off, with an unpopular Labour candidate (not the incumbent) against a dynamic and new Green challenger, just like in Melbourne. We would have won by a much bigger margin in 2010. The more interesting discussion is whether AV would have enabled us to make the breakthrough much earlier on. Let's take a look at the 2005 Pavilion result:
Labour 35%
Tories 24%
Greens 22%
Lib Dems 17%
Others 2%
UKIP only got 1% back then, so we add that to the Conservative total. Then on the Lib Dems preference allocation, the Greens would have needed 6% (Labour 8% and Tories 3% as an example) to get into second place in the runoff. It is conceivable under AV that we would have been in a Labour v Greens contest five years earlier, especially if you consider that both the Lib Dems and Greens were against the Iraq War, and for many people that was a heavy influence on their voting choice. Where would the bulk of Tory preferences have gone? To Labour? Doubtful. Probably to the Greens. In my opinion we'd have won and made a breakthrough five years earlier under an AV system using these results.
Oh hang on a minute though, I'm being awfully "conservative" and overlooking a basic point. How many people would have voted Green as a first choice, safe in the knowledge that their second choice for Labour or the Lib Dems would "keep the Tories out" in both 2010 and 2005. A lot more.
Why Respect should be backing AV
Birmingham Hall Green result
Labour 33%
Respect 25.1%
Lib Dem 24.6%
Tories 15%
Others 2%
How would Tory preferences have been reallocated? I believe that if Salma Yaqoob was the candidate seen as best able to beat Labour, she would have attracted a decent amount of support even from the Conservatives. However, it is also reasonable to argue that more Tories would put their second choice vote as Lib Dem. Again though, how many reluctant Labour (or Lib Dem) voters would have chosen Salma Yaqoob as their first choice safe in the knowledge that their second preferences would have gone back to Labour (or the Lib Dems)? Given these two factors, I believe you would have a Labour v Respect runoff for the seat. As we've seen from Australia, when it is about defeating an incumbent and opposition MP, even right wing protest votes will swing behind left of Labo(u)r challengers.
I will attach the health warning to this. Australian voters have a choice of above and below the line voting. Many choose to vote above the line, and they accept preference allocation in the way their party decides is best for them. That isn't what we are going to be offered in an AV referendum. Our voters are going to have to rank candidates in the way they see fit, and that will be slightly different.
19 August 2010
The Case for AV - Part 2
This post will look in detail at what a change to an AV system will mean for the Green Party, starting with our own positioning and looking in detail at the financial implications.
There has also been some other debate elsewhere in the Green blogosphere on this. Derek Wall is against, Nishma Doshi is sceptical, Jean Lambert is in favour, Caroline Lucas called it a "small step" in the right direction and Jeff at SNP Tactical Voting (now a GPEW member - welcome!) is in favour but studying the evidence.
A Democratic Decision
This autumn there will be a debate at Conference to determine our position on AV. There are three possible outcomes, that we vote to support yes or no, or that due to some procedural eventuality, we end up with no position on it.
Whatever Conference decides, which will become the official position of the party, I think this is going to be an issue where there will be a difference of opinion between different individuals within our party. That is the sign of political health by the way!
Once our policy position is set, we are free to campaign how we like, but we’d have to make clear we disagree with our party on this particularly issue if we are on the wrong side of the Conference decision.
Financial Implications for the Green Party
At the moment, to hold a deposit under the First Past the Post system, we need to gain 5% of the votes. In marginal seats this is incredibly difficult. In an analysis of the 2005 General Election results, our vote was squeezed by 30 to 40% in marginal seats in an election where Labour were comfortable winners. As we’ve seen from the 2010 General Election results, a marginal election has a huge squeeze effect on us, with only a few exceptions to this rule.
It is in my opinion reasonable to assume that under an AV system we will be able to retain a great many more deposits as people express their first choice preference for us, before allocating a second choice to the least worst option. The cost of lost deposits to us in this election was £164,000. In fact, the lost deposit is one of the principle barriers to enabling a Green candidate to stand in every UK seat.
I think we also have to plan our General Election strategy around the retention of Brighton Pavilion (or its successor constituency after boundary reworking) and gaining Norwich South (or its successor). There may also be other plausible seats in play by then under AV. If we succeed in re-electing even a single MP, we will likely once again qualify for Short money. This is public funding for the following purposes:
• to assist an opposition party in carrying out its Parliamentary business;
• for the opposition parties' travel and associated expenses; and
• for the running costs of the Leader of the Opposition's office.
At this General Election we qualified for Short money by winning one seat and at least 150,000 votes. This is worth £53,987, plus £1,573 travel expenses for our single MP to help her carry out her Parliamentary business. As this Parliamentary note makes clear Short money has a real use for a small opposition party as it can be used for:
“… research associated with Front-Bench duties, developing and communicating alternative policies to those of the Government and shadowing the Government’s Front Bench.”
The immediate impact of a General Election for the Green Party fought under AV would be significantly fewer lost deposits and a greater allocation of Short money if we were to win at least one seat in the next General Election. As I made clear in my last post, the decision to back AV or not should not be about what is good for the Green Party, but it is vital that the practical implications of the change are understood for us as a party.
The Dynamics of the Campaign
At the moment the Liberal Democrats are embraced in gently suffocating deadlock with the Conservative Party. This referendum was the shabby compromise they accepted for going into coalition, and Nick Clegg probably sold himself and his party short in accepting it. That said, it is now on the table and will be backed by all the Lib Dems (whether personally in favour of the coalition or not) as a route to further electoral reform. They will view it as the start of the journey, not the end.
Given that Labour are likely to oppose the bill in Parliament, and many MPs in safeish Labour seats are going to look nervously upon any change, I think it is likely that Labour will oppose the referendum, or at absolute best, allow individuals in the Labour Party to campaign as they see fit. I’d be delighted to be proved wrong on this! The Electoral Reform Society (ERS) and the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust are likely to be key campaigners in favour of the change.
This gives the Lib Dems their last hurrah – by presenting themselves as the plucky underdogs taking on the two party system once again. Clegg would revel in it and probably regain some popularity during the campaign, with voters offering the benefit of the doubt given that he is trying to make a historic change. We can certainly neutralise any popularity gains Lib Dems would make from this at a local level, by offering critical support to the campaign, but keeping our focus on protecting public services and our genuine commitment to the environment (in contrast to huge central government funding cuts).
If on the other hand, we officially position ourselves against AV because it just isn’t good enough, I’d expect the Lib Dems to attack us as idealists, unwilling to deal with real issues and siding with the all of the conservative voices in British politics. There are dangers for us if Conference does take that view, although individuals can make clear their own preferences. Given that further on in this Parliament, with many Lib Dems becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the coalition, being seen as pragmatic and still in favour of further reform will likely prove attractive to increasingly disaffected Liberal supporters.
If Conference does vote in favour of AV, we have to offer an innovative contribution to the campaign that makes sure the Greens are at the forefront of reform, ahead of the Lib Dems and everyone else. I have some clear ideas about how we do that, but I won’t be sharing them in public for other parties to steal them.
Dealing with the result
I’m in favour of this system as a step on the way to genuine voting reform. AV would be used to fight the next General Election and I think the changes would enable the Green Party to become a stronger force in British politics. We also need to recognise that we would liberate a great number of dyed in the wool Labour (and Lib Dem) supporters from tribal voting patterns.
If AV is used at a 2015 General Election, local election reform will follow. It would be unsustainable to keep FPTP as our method of electing local government if we had changed it for national elections. I think this would enable us to increase our councillor base significantly in a number of our stronger areas. Even in current low activity areas, high numbers of Green first preferences in certain council wards would show where we could potentially make quick breakthroughs.
We could be underestimating the appetite for reform. The system chosen for local council elections may employ AV+ rather than straight AV for a variety or reasons, but the key point is that once the break has been made from FPTP, further reform will be easier to make. One reason for thinking this is that the House of Lords will eventually be using a more proportional system of election, although we don’t yet have a timetable on how soon this will happen.
My personal view in the event the referendum is lost, Nick Clegg would be considerably diminished, but Cameron will be keen to avoid breaking the coalition at a time when cuts are really biting. Reform of the House of Lords would be the only thing left for the Lib Dems in the coalition, and I would expect it to be fast tracked. House of Lords elections would have to be set to enable strong proportionality as compensation for the many Lib Dem MPs who will lose seats if the next election is still under FPTP, otherwise open rebellion would quickly follow a lost referendum. However, I think the House of Lords reform will proceed in that way even if the AV referendum is won, although the timescale will be longer.
In conclusion
I’m backing AV, along with Adrian Ramsay and a number of others in the party. It isn’t the end, but rather it is the beginning of a journey towards true PR. Like our internal referendum on leadership, this is also a key political decision for us. I look forward to the debate at Conference!
There has also been some other debate elsewhere in the Green blogosphere on this. Derek Wall is against, Nishma Doshi is sceptical, Jean Lambert is in favour, Caroline Lucas called it a "small step" in the right direction and Jeff at SNP Tactical Voting (now a GPEW member - welcome!) is in favour but studying the evidence.
A Democratic Decision
This autumn there will be a debate at Conference to determine our position on AV. There are three possible outcomes, that we vote to support yes or no, or that due to some procedural eventuality, we end up with no position on it.
Whatever Conference decides, which will become the official position of the party, I think this is going to be an issue where there will be a difference of opinion between different individuals within our party. That is the sign of political health by the way!
Once our policy position is set, we are free to campaign how we like, but we’d have to make clear we disagree with our party on this particularly issue if we are on the wrong side of the Conference decision.
Financial Implications for the Green Party
At the moment, to hold a deposit under the First Past the Post system, we need to gain 5% of the votes. In marginal seats this is incredibly difficult. In an analysis of the 2005 General Election results, our vote was squeezed by 30 to 40% in marginal seats in an election where Labour were comfortable winners. As we’ve seen from the 2010 General Election results, a marginal election has a huge squeeze effect on us, with only a few exceptions to this rule.
It is in my opinion reasonable to assume that under an AV system we will be able to retain a great many more deposits as people express their first choice preference for us, before allocating a second choice to the least worst option. The cost of lost deposits to us in this election was £164,000. In fact, the lost deposit is one of the principle barriers to enabling a Green candidate to stand in every UK seat.
I think we also have to plan our General Election strategy around the retention of Brighton Pavilion (or its successor constituency after boundary reworking) and gaining Norwich South (or its successor). There may also be other plausible seats in play by then under AV. If we succeed in re-electing even a single MP, we will likely once again qualify for Short money. This is public funding for the following purposes:
• to assist an opposition party in carrying out its Parliamentary business;
• for the opposition parties' travel and associated expenses; and
• for the running costs of the Leader of the Opposition's office.
At this General Election we qualified for Short money by winning one seat and at least 150,000 votes. This is worth £53,987, plus £1,573 travel expenses for our single MP to help her carry out her Parliamentary business. As this Parliamentary note makes clear Short money has a real use for a small opposition party as it can be used for:
“… research associated with Front-Bench duties, developing and communicating alternative policies to those of the Government and shadowing the Government’s Front Bench.”
The immediate impact of a General Election for the Green Party fought under AV would be significantly fewer lost deposits and a greater allocation of Short money if we were to win at least one seat in the next General Election. As I made clear in my last post, the decision to back AV or not should not be about what is good for the Green Party, but it is vital that the practical implications of the change are understood for us as a party.
The Dynamics of the Campaign
At the moment the Liberal Democrats are embraced in gently suffocating deadlock with the Conservative Party. This referendum was the shabby compromise they accepted for going into coalition, and Nick Clegg probably sold himself and his party short in accepting it. That said, it is now on the table and will be backed by all the Lib Dems (whether personally in favour of the coalition or not) as a route to further electoral reform. They will view it as the start of the journey, not the end.
Given that Labour are likely to oppose the bill in Parliament, and many MPs in safeish Labour seats are going to look nervously upon any change, I think it is likely that Labour will oppose the referendum, or at absolute best, allow individuals in the Labour Party to campaign as they see fit. I’d be delighted to be proved wrong on this! The Electoral Reform Society (ERS) and the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust are likely to be key campaigners in favour of the change.
This gives the Lib Dems their last hurrah – by presenting themselves as the plucky underdogs taking on the two party system once again. Clegg would revel in it and probably regain some popularity during the campaign, with voters offering the benefit of the doubt given that he is trying to make a historic change. We can certainly neutralise any popularity gains Lib Dems would make from this at a local level, by offering critical support to the campaign, but keeping our focus on protecting public services and our genuine commitment to the environment (in contrast to huge central government funding cuts).
If on the other hand, we officially position ourselves against AV because it just isn’t good enough, I’d expect the Lib Dems to attack us as idealists, unwilling to deal with real issues and siding with the all of the conservative voices in British politics. There are dangers for us if Conference does take that view, although individuals can make clear their own preferences. Given that further on in this Parliament, with many Lib Dems becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the coalition, being seen as pragmatic and still in favour of further reform will likely prove attractive to increasingly disaffected Liberal supporters.
If Conference does vote in favour of AV, we have to offer an innovative contribution to the campaign that makes sure the Greens are at the forefront of reform, ahead of the Lib Dems and everyone else. I have some clear ideas about how we do that, but I won’t be sharing them in public for other parties to steal them.
Dealing with the result
I’m in favour of this system as a step on the way to genuine voting reform. AV would be used to fight the next General Election and I think the changes would enable the Green Party to become a stronger force in British politics. We also need to recognise that we would liberate a great number of dyed in the wool Labour (and Lib Dem) supporters from tribal voting patterns.
If AV is used at a 2015 General Election, local election reform will follow. It would be unsustainable to keep FPTP as our method of electing local government if we had changed it for national elections. I think this would enable us to increase our councillor base significantly in a number of our stronger areas. Even in current low activity areas, high numbers of Green first preferences in certain council wards would show where we could potentially make quick breakthroughs.
We could be underestimating the appetite for reform. The system chosen for local council elections may employ AV+ rather than straight AV for a variety or reasons, but the key point is that once the break has been made from FPTP, further reform will be easier to make. One reason for thinking this is that the House of Lords will eventually be using a more proportional system of election, although we don’t yet have a timetable on how soon this will happen.
My personal view in the event the referendum is lost, Nick Clegg would be considerably diminished, but Cameron will be keen to avoid breaking the coalition at a time when cuts are really biting. Reform of the House of Lords would be the only thing left for the Lib Dems in the coalition, and I would expect it to be fast tracked. House of Lords elections would have to be set to enable strong proportionality as compensation for the many Lib Dem MPs who will lose seats if the next election is still under FPTP, otherwise open rebellion would quickly follow a lost referendum. However, I think the House of Lords reform will proceed in that way even if the AV referendum is won, although the timescale will be longer.
In conclusion
I’m backing AV, along with Adrian Ramsay and a number of others in the party. It isn’t the end, but rather it is the beginning of a journey towards true PR. Like our internal referendum on leadership, this is also a key political decision for us. I look forward to the debate at Conference!
18 August 2010
Sharon Green Facebook Story on Channel 4
You can watch it here. The specific mention is 1 min 10 seconds in.
I'd be interested to hear what the regional party investigation (reported here) has uncovered, as the Channel 4 story seems to suggest it was now in the past.
I'd be interested to hear what the regional party investigation (reported here) has uncovered, as the Channel 4 story seems to suggest it was now in the past.
10 August 2010
The Case for AV
If we had a referendum giving us the option of an Additional Member System, STV or AV+, like all of those in favour of real electoral reform, I'd reject AV immediately. We don't. The referendum being put in front of us is a continued "First Past the Post" (FPTP) system, and the alternative is AV.
So what are the system arguments in favour and against?
The Electoral Reform Society website has a good section on both FPTP and AV, and it is the main site I use when teaching this topic to Public Services students.
To summarise, the main argument against AV is that it could deliver an even less proportionate parliament than under FPTP. There is no doubt that it gets rid of the idea that a vote for any party is wasted, and by having the option of ranking candidates, voters can express themselves in a more effective way.
An example of AV acting disproportionately would have been in 1997. The huge swing against Major's Conservatives would under AV left the Conservatives with less seats than the Liberal Democrats.
What are the political arguments?
AV would have some other effects. Where a disgraced politician stood for re-election, say for example Hazel Blears in Salford and Eccles, it is likely that under an AV system she would have lost her seat.
However it doesn't address the fact that voters in constituencies like Liverpool Riverside, where Labour polled nearly 60% of the vote, are still likely to return a Labour MP. Other votes here count for nothing and have little prospect of altering the result in the near future. Even for the Labour supporters here, they may find themselves looking in frustration at marginal seats across the water in Wirral that Labour narrowly lost to the Conservatives. Some votes are more equal that others.
AV would have brought us much closer to winning Norwich South, we probably would have won Brighton Pavilion by a wider margin after transfers and Salma Yaqoob would have benefited in Birmingham Hall Green, with enough Lib Dem transfers to unseat the Labour incumbent. On the other hand, AV would effectively shut the door on the BNP ever winning a Westminster seat (and would rob them of all council representation if it was introduced at a local level). While an AV referendum shouldn't be about what is good for the Green Party, we have only one MP in Westminster, despite gaining nearly 9% of the national vote when the closest thing we have to proportional elections (the Euros) took place in 2009.
In terms of what happens after the referendum on AV, the sensible political question to ask is that if the British public reject a limited (and less than ideal) reform of the voting system, how likely is it that a better proposal will come along? My view is that if the AV system is rejected in 2011, the opportunity to reform our voting system will be lost for another generation. On the other hand, if AV cracks open the door of national political reform, we can expect more changes to follow.
How is internal and external dialogue developing so far?
A lot of people I know have, for very principled reasons, decided that AV isn't the route forward. I agree with the fact that the Lib Dems have sold their long term ambition of genuine voting reform short. I also think that whatever position our Conference takes on this, people are free to make their own position and views clear. I'm also proud that as a party we will discuss and vote on this.
The Liberal Democrats will be campaigning in favour of AV. The Conservatives and Labour will overwhelmingly campaign against (with notable exceptions). The BNP seem to be against and view it as a conspiracy designed specifically to damage them. UKIP favour AV+ but don't seem to have a clear line on the current referendum yet.
The debate will continue and I'll post some more of my own thought on this soon.
So what are the system arguments in favour and against?
The Electoral Reform Society website has a good section on both FPTP and AV, and it is the main site I use when teaching this topic to Public Services students.
To summarise, the main argument against AV is that it could deliver an even less proportionate parliament than under FPTP. There is no doubt that it gets rid of the idea that a vote for any party is wasted, and by having the option of ranking candidates, voters can express themselves in a more effective way.
An example of AV acting disproportionately would have been in 1997. The huge swing against Major's Conservatives would under AV left the Conservatives with less seats than the Liberal Democrats.
What are the political arguments?
AV would have some other effects. Where a disgraced politician stood for re-election, say for example Hazel Blears in Salford and Eccles, it is likely that under an AV system she would have lost her seat.
However it doesn't address the fact that voters in constituencies like Liverpool Riverside, where Labour polled nearly 60% of the vote, are still likely to return a Labour MP. Other votes here count for nothing and have little prospect of altering the result in the near future. Even for the Labour supporters here, they may find themselves looking in frustration at marginal seats across the water in Wirral that Labour narrowly lost to the Conservatives. Some votes are more equal that others.
AV would have brought us much closer to winning Norwich South, we probably would have won Brighton Pavilion by a wider margin after transfers and Salma Yaqoob would have benefited in Birmingham Hall Green, with enough Lib Dem transfers to unseat the Labour incumbent. On the other hand, AV would effectively shut the door on the BNP ever winning a Westminster seat (and would rob them of all council representation if it was introduced at a local level). While an AV referendum shouldn't be about what is good for the Green Party, we have only one MP in Westminster, despite gaining nearly 9% of the national vote when the closest thing we have to proportional elections (the Euros) took place in 2009.
In terms of what happens after the referendum on AV, the sensible political question to ask is that if the British public reject a limited (and less than ideal) reform of the voting system, how likely is it that a better proposal will come along? My view is that if the AV system is rejected in 2011, the opportunity to reform our voting system will be lost for another generation. On the other hand, if AV cracks open the door of national political reform, we can expect more changes to follow.
How is internal and external dialogue developing so far?
A lot of people I know have, for very principled reasons, decided that AV isn't the route forward. I agree with the fact that the Lib Dems have sold their long term ambition of genuine voting reform short. I also think that whatever position our Conference takes on this, people are free to make their own position and views clear. I'm also proud that as a party we will discuss and vote on this.
The Liberal Democrats will be campaigning in favour of AV. The Conservatives and Labour will overwhelmingly campaign against (with notable exceptions). The BNP seem to be against and view it as a conspiracy designed specifically to damage them. UKIP favour AV+ but don't seem to have a clear line on the current referendum yet.
The debate will continue and I'll post some more of my own thought on this soon.
2 August 2010
Green Party Leadership Election
Given that I am acting as Campaign Chair for Caroline Lucas and Adrian Ramsay, working alongside the excellent John Reardon, who is managing the campaign, I thought I'd post up a few thoughts on why re-electing Caroline and Adrian is the right thing for the party to do.
We started 2008 with 7,441 members of the Green Party. But today membership is close to the 12,000 mark. That increase is a credit to every single activist, campaigner and candidate that has stood for the Green Party. That increase is also about the leadership shown by Caroline and Adrian, who were elected as our first ever leadership team in 2008. Their leadership, electoral campaigning and media work has been a huge success for our party. There is no better team to continue to take us forward to future success, but it is crucial that this leadership election debates the issues that will matter in the coming years.
When we democratically made a decision to have a Leadership team in the party, we chose to reject the dangers of “traditional” top down party leadership structures. Caroline and Adrian have 1 vote each on our Green Party Executive committee, along with 13 other members. Their role is to inspire through moral leadership and to act as clear and identifiable spokespeople for our party.
In the first two year term there has been elation, with the election of Caroline Lucas as our first ever MP at Westminster, but for many of our hardest working activists there have also been disappointments. We narrowly missed out on winning more Euro seats in 2009 and many local parties lost vital local election contests in May this year, as a national election turnout swamped the hard local work that many of us had put in.
As our lead candidate in the North West region’s Euro Elections (where we lost out by just 0.3% to Nick Griffin and the BNP) I can understand just how painful it has been for many of our best activists around the country not to succeed despite tremendously hard work. We all have our own viewpoints on the reasons. My only criticism is that collectively and in hindsight, decisions by the Executive in 2009 look like they were not ambitious enough financially or electorally for our party. A couple of political message boards have made the point after the publication of the annual register of accounts by the Electoral Commission that in 2009 we were "mean" greens - we didn't spend our money. Arguably that was a bad call. The election of more MEPs would have paid for the extra investment. What is crucial is that we get things right next time.
What I do know is that both Caroline and Adrian were amongst those arguing for more ambition. We must be willing to acknowledge that we could have done even better and I want those leading our party to be those who are credible elected figures, with a track record of success, who take onboard the need to improve and to make the right judgement calls for our future development. That criteria doesn't just apply to Caroline and Adrian though, it needs to apply to every single member of the Executive.
In their first term as our Leadership team, Caroline has been elected to Westminster, where she is already punching far above the political weight of a single MP. Adrian has been a huge part of the inspiration and perspiration behind the awesome electoral success at a local level in Norwich, where we are genuine contenders to take control of the council in elections on the 9th September this year. He also doubled our share of the vote at the General Election in Norwich South to 15%, overcoming the three party squeeze that cost us many lost deposits elsewhere in the country.
Both Caroline and Adrian are committed to providing the moral leadership needed on the Green Party Executive to get things right in this electoral cycle. That means a big increase in local councillors, success in the two Assembly elections in 2011/12 and the transformation of the Green Party from a small party with pockets of strength, to a national force. We can only do this by winning in more regions in the 2014 European Elections and more seats in the next scheduled General Election in 2015.
This isn’t an easy task, and it does not just fall to two people. It requires an ambitious Green Party Executive, visionary collective leadership and a huge amount of work from each of us.
If you voted in the 2008 leadership contest, make the judgement for yourself about how you vote this year, and do it on the track record of the incumbents:
- 65% increase in membership in two years
- Caroline Lucas, our first MP in Westminster
- Adrian Ramsay in Norwich, leading by example in each and every election campaign there since 1998 with huge success and the best prospect of our next MP at Westminster
If you are one of our new members, we are delighted to have you on board. I hope you participate in this leadership election and re-elect the leadership team that has no doubt played a part in your decision to join us.
A final point that we have made on the limited amount of campaign literature we have produced is to urge people to go and support Adrian Ramsay and the Norwich Green Party in the extraordinary local elections called for the 9th September. We need to do whatever we can to ensure that Norwich Greens end up as the largest political party there (see Rupert Read's latest post).
I'll be expanding on some of my thoughts here soon. There is some big thinking going on in the party about political strategy and with the Liberal Democrats in a government committed to the most brutal cuts in history, there will be a historic opportunity for our party to grow rapidly in the coming few years. Every Liberal Democrat up and down the country has a choice, stay or go. Those brave and principled Lib Dems that leave, such as Mike Shepherd in Halton, can hold their heads high.
Caroline and Adrian will be getting my vote. I believe they can and will inspire many more politically active people to join us, particularly former Labour and Liberal Democrat activists. The Green Party is needed now more than ever before, and every activist counts.
We started 2008 with 7,441 members of the Green Party. But today membership is close to the 12,000 mark. That increase is a credit to every single activist, campaigner and candidate that has stood for the Green Party. That increase is also about the leadership shown by Caroline and Adrian, who were elected as our first ever leadership team in 2008. Their leadership, electoral campaigning and media work has been a huge success for our party. There is no better team to continue to take us forward to future success, but it is crucial that this leadership election debates the issues that will matter in the coming years.
When we democratically made a decision to have a Leadership team in the party, we chose to reject the dangers of “traditional” top down party leadership structures. Caroline and Adrian have 1 vote each on our Green Party Executive committee, along with 13 other members. Their role is to inspire through moral leadership and to act as clear and identifiable spokespeople for our party.
In the first two year term there has been elation, with the election of Caroline Lucas as our first ever MP at Westminster, but for many of our hardest working activists there have also been disappointments. We narrowly missed out on winning more Euro seats in 2009 and many local parties lost vital local election contests in May this year, as a national election turnout swamped the hard local work that many of us had put in.
As our lead candidate in the North West region’s Euro Elections (where we lost out by just 0.3% to Nick Griffin and the BNP) I can understand just how painful it has been for many of our best activists around the country not to succeed despite tremendously hard work. We all have our own viewpoints on the reasons. My only criticism is that collectively and in hindsight, decisions by the Executive in 2009 look like they were not ambitious enough financially or electorally for our party. A couple of political message boards have made the point after the publication of the annual register of accounts by the Electoral Commission that in 2009 we were "mean" greens - we didn't spend our money. Arguably that was a bad call. The election of more MEPs would have paid for the extra investment. What is crucial is that we get things right next time.
What I do know is that both Caroline and Adrian were amongst those arguing for more ambition. We must be willing to acknowledge that we could have done even better and I want those leading our party to be those who are credible elected figures, with a track record of success, who take onboard the need to improve and to make the right judgement calls for our future development. That criteria doesn't just apply to Caroline and Adrian though, it needs to apply to every single member of the Executive.
In their first term as our Leadership team, Caroline has been elected to Westminster, where she is already punching far above the political weight of a single MP. Adrian has been a huge part of the inspiration and perspiration behind the awesome electoral success at a local level in Norwich, where we are genuine contenders to take control of the council in elections on the 9th September this year. He also doubled our share of the vote at the General Election in Norwich South to 15%, overcoming the three party squeeze that cost us many lost deposits elsewhere in the country.
Both Caroline and Adrian are committed to providing the moral leadership needed on the Green Party Executive to get things right in this electoral cycle. That means a big increase in local councillors, success in the two Assembly elections in 2011/12 and the transformation of the Green Party from a small party with pockets of strength, to a national force. We can only do this by winning in more regions in the 2014 European Elections and more seats in the next scheduled General Election in 2015.
This isn’t an easy task, and it does not just fall to two people. It requires an ambitious Green Party Executive, visionary collective leadership and a huge amount of work from each of us.
If you voted in the 2008 leadership contest, make the judgement for yourself about how you vote this year, and do it on the track record of the incumbents:
- 65% increase in membership in two years
- Caroline Lucas, our first MP in Westminster
- Adrian Ramsay in Norwich, leading by example in each and every election campaign there since 1998 with huge success and the best prospect of our next MP at Westminster
If you are one of our new members, we are delighted to have you on board. I hope you participate in this leadership election and re-elect the leadership team that has no doubt played a part in your decision to join us.
A final point that we have made on the limited amount of campaign literature we have produced is to urge people to go and support Adrian Ramsay and the Norwich Green Party in the extraordinary local elections called for the 9th September. We need to do whatever we can to ensure that Norwich Greens end up as the largest political party there (see Rupert Read's latest post).
I'll be expanding on some of my thoughts here soon. There is some big thinking going on in the party about political strategy and with the Liberal Democrats in a government committed to the most brutal cuts in history, there will be a historic opportunity for our party to grow rapidly in the coming few years. Every Liberal Democrat up and down the country has a choice, stay or go. Those brave and principled Lib Dems that leave, such as Mike Shepherd in Halton, can hold their heads high.
Caroline and Adrian will be getting my vote. I believe they can and will inspire many more politically active people to join us, particularly former Labour and Liberal Democrat activists. The Green Party is needed now more than ever before, and every activist counts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)