Why I'm Voting No to AV

The debate over the change to the electoral system took a while to get going, but, in Westminster at least, it is now in full swing. The debate itself has been somewhat overshadowed by the back biting and recriminations between the Yes and No camps, and by the strange sight of sworn political enemies sharing stages on the campaign trail. But is a system that Nick Clegg described as ‘a miserable little compromise’ the right system for this country to elect its leaders?

The Lib Dems have long sought reform to the voting system. They, understandably, believe that a system that only gives them 9% of the seats when they’ve won 23% of the popular vote is unfair, and one of their most cherished policies has been to introduce proportional representation (PR), which would give the party greater representation in terms of parliamentary seats. As the Conservatives are not in favour of such a change the coalition agreement instead set out a referendum to introduce the alternative vote (AV), with the Lib Dems supporting the change and the Tories opposing it. AV involves the voter ranking their votes in order of preference rather than simply picking one candidate.

Of  all the issues I have with AV, one stands out above all. The principle of one person one vote in this country is central to our democracy. The fact that every adult in the country (prisoners aside, for the moment at least) gets an equal say in who runs the country makes our democracy viable. With AV this would no longer be the case; someone who chooses a fringe candidate, such as the BNP, UKIP, the Green Party or the Monster Raving Loony Party, will get a second, and perhaps third and fourth vote while those who vote for the most popular party in the area will get just one vote. So far, nobody on the Yes campaign has been able to justify this unacceptable affront to fairness and equality.

Currently, many Lib Dems would argue that their vote counts for nothing as they have no chance of winning the seat in which they reside, and they may be right, but this works the same for other parties as well. A Tory voter in the North East has little chance of influencing the result, neither does a Labour voter in Henley. There has to be a winner in each constituency, and just because you live in an area that elects a different candidate doesn’t mean the voting system is broken, it means your policies don’t appeal to the people in the area.

The Yes campaign’s argument that AV will cut off extremist parties is also nonsense. Parties such as the BNP thrive on the publicity they receive, not in winning seats, which they are unlikely to ever do. Extremist parties could, and in certain parts of the country almost certainly will, get many second and third preference votes, probably not enough for them to win the seat but enough to give them extra influence, and the publicity they desperately seek. And giving supporters of fringe parties extra votes doesn’t seem like a particularly sensible way to ‘shut down extremists’

The assertion that winners of a constituency would have the backing of a higher number of their constituents under AV may be stretching the definition of the word support. Any extra ‘support’ would come from those who had placed a winning candidate in second, third or even fourth place on their list of preferences. Hardly a ringing endorsement. It could even see a situation whereby a candidate that received the second or third amount of votes in the first round of counting could win the constituency, which is a sure fire way to allow mediocre candidates the opportunity to triumph. AV doesn’t give you a more emphatic winner with a greater level of support for the candidate; just ask Ed Miliband

There is also the fact that some parts if the country will see much higher turnouts on the referendum than others due to Nick Clegg’s decision to schedule the referendum on the same day as the local elections. One of the reasons for this is to boost turnout, and back when Clegg’s stock was high that was probably a politically astute decision. The problem with this is that only some parts of the country are voting in the local elections, such as pro AV Scotland while other parts, such as the more sceptical London aren’t. This could lead to skewing of the results, something that Nick Clegg undoubtedly considered when setting the date for the referendum. Of course the other argument could be that voters should get off their arses and vote but people have many greater priorities at the moment than the voting system.

Much has been made by the Yes campaign about AV reforming politics. I would disagree that politics needs major reform in the first place (the whole expenses scandal was a witch hunt that took the actions of a few and tarred all politicians with the same brush), but even if you did think this then is AV going to change the whole political culture? It is by no means certain. Perhaps it would make safe seats marginally less safe but I’m not convinced it will lead to a more civilised politics, particularly not if the campaign, in which Clegg and Chris Hulme have become progressively more desperate and aggressive in their attacks on those who disagree with them, is anything to go by. Neither will AV end tactical voting as candidates will just encourage voters to specific candidates as their second choice rather than as an alternative first choice. Backroom deals won’t stop because of AV, the focus of them will just shift instead

If AV leads to more coalition governments, and there is some evidence to suggest it would, then all the more reason to vote No, at least if this coalition is anything to go by. This coalition has been a slap in the face for democracy; the single biggest issue by a country mile at the 2010 general election was economic policy in the face of the global banking crisis, and despite the fact that around 55% of the electorate voted for parties, such as the Lib Dems, who were opposed to the Tory austerity plans this is exactly what we have ended up with. Lib Dem support has bottomed out because of the union, and both Lib Dem and Tory grassroots are showing increasing signs of displeasure. It is probably unfair to judge all coalitions by this one, and it is probably fair to say that naturally most Lib Dems are closer politically to Labour than the Conservatives so future coalitions between the two would be the more likely scenario, but I tend to believe that one party rule is the better system that is much more likely to deliver what it promised to in the election campaign. Of course, as in 2010, first past the post also can deliver coalition governments!

None of this is to say I completely agree with everything the No campaign has put forward. I don’t believe that AV is too complicated for us mere mortals to comprehend, nor do I believe that the cost is a factor. For the right electoral system £250 million is not overly expensive, even in these tight times. I also disagree with any strategy, from either side, that attempts to attract votes by emphasising the damage that could be caused to a particular opposition politician or party. Nor is it to say I don’t sympathise with those who advocate change to the electoral system, particularly the Lib Dems. But no system is perfect; each has its flaws, and there are too many downsides to AV for me to be convinced it will be a better system than the current one; there is a reason that only 3 other countries in the world use AV, of which Fiji is a military dictatorship, and almost 60% of Australians want to ditch the system. And under no circumstances could I ever vote for a system that gives some people more votes than others

Cameron is right on university access - yet so, so wrong

The fact that David Cameron got his figures wrong when he called Cambridge University a ‘disgrace’ for its intake of black students is really missing the point. His broader point was absolutely spot on; that elite universities are ignoring their obligations to take on a broader spectrum of students rather than, as at the moment, overwhelmingly white middle and upper class students.

The intake of ethnic minority students into Oxbridge is less than half of that into the general university population, and one college at Oxford has not admitted a black student for 5 years. The boom in A level students from minorities attending university has not translated to a similar rise at the Oxbridge universities, nor the Russell Group of elite universities, despite a rise in applications. Oxford university put this down to the fact that ethnic minority students disproportionately apply for the three most oversubscribed courses, but even then they are less likely to get on to these courses. There is also little evidence that Oxbridge are attempting to persuade ethnic students to apply for other less subscribed courses.

As well as ethnicity, Oxbridge also appear to discriminate by socio-economic status. Oxbridge universities overwhelmingly recruit students from the top three socio-economic groups, to the tune of almost 90%. It is still an unfortunate truth that more than half of students in the whole of the UK are also from these same three groups but none draw more from the upper and middle classes than the elite universities. Is this because richer A level students are brighter, or is it because they are more privileged, and their parents money can buy greater opportunities?

It is great to see that David Cameron has recognised there is a problem, but his moral outrage is tempered by the policies that his coalition government has so far introduced. The scrapping of the EMA will impact on the ability of poorer students, disproportionately ethnic minorities, to stay on in further education, as will policies that have slowed down economic recovery. The tripling (in most cases, especially amongst the elite universities) of university tuition fees will, without doubt, deter poorer students from attending university, while in the long term cuts to Sure Start will ensure that many disadvantaged children will be denied the best possible start in their education, something that has been emphatically proven to increase educational chances later on in life. Nick Clegg campaigned against all of these policies during the election, drawing much of his parties support because of his stance, only to pull off a complete U-turn once in government. While in office Labour made strides in access to higher education, but made only small roads in access to Oxbridge universities, mainly on state school access (although this is mainly from state schools in well heeled areas). Partly this is because many policies were long term, such as Sure Start, and results wouldn’t be seen for many years, and partly it is because they could have tried harder

Cameron also needs to look in his own back yard when it comes to representation. The Conservative party in Parliament is overwhelmingly made up of, that’s right, white male public schoolboys, nearly 40% of whom went to Oxbridge. Just 16% of the parties MP’s are female, and just 4% come from ethnic minorities. The Lib Dems, on the other hand, have NO ethnic minority MP’s, and the lowest proportion of female MP’s in Parliament. Labour has 31% female MP’s, by far the highest of the main political parties although still under representative of the general population, likewise ethnic minority MP’s, with 6%

Representation in Parliament is partly a by product of inequalities at university. Elite universities need to work closer with schools in poorer areas to guide and encourage the brightest students to ensure they have the best chance to enter these establishments, especially if they're goimg to be allowed to charge £9000 a year. And Cameron needs to rethink his policies if he is to be taken seriously on access to top universities