Labour Big Beasts (and Me) Against Voting Reform

In May, Britons will be going to the poll in the first nationwide referendum for 36 years. No, not on anything to do with EU treaties, something all three main parties promised to hold referenda on at one point or another. Instead they will decide on whether to change the centuries-old First-Past-the-Post voting system to something called Alternative Vote (AV). AV is not the first choice of any proponent of voting reform. Nick Clegg called it a 'miserable little compromise' and the referendum is the outcome of exactly that, a compromise hammered out to get the Lib Dems to support the Tories and thus get David Cameron into Downing Street.

That no one really wants AV is shown today by a number of Labour grandees emerging from Westminster Palace to join the no campaign, against the will of their leader Ed Milliband. Margaret Beckett, the former Foreign Secretary, and Lord Reid of Cardowan, the former Home Secretary, Lord Falconer, former Lord Chancellor, and Lord Prescott, former Deputy Prime Minister, now stand alongside Conservative heavyweights William Hague, the current Foreign Secretary and Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary in opposing reform. With Tory members of the Cabinet on this side, only the Lib Dems appear to be in full support of the measure. But we always knew they were such opportunists that even a 'miserable little compromise' will do.

I myself am opposed to voting reform. First Past the Post has worked perfectly well over the years and tends to result in a clear winner, something the British voter appreciates greatly. Even the five day long coalition negotiation after the last election was too long for many voters. So why would they wish to reform te system in a way that will favour smaller parties and thereby lead to a greater likelihood of coalitions and compromise among parties? The current system has also been adapted to suit the British voting landscape and the politically beneficial link between constituency and MP is best maintained by keeping it. And if the objection to First Past the Post is that it is not proportional than AV is not a solution - the votes of the minority will still not matter -, only Proportional Representation would be.

What worries me about today's articles by Ms. Beckett and Lord Reid is that they are decidely negative. Instead of arguing about what's good about First Past the Post, both former ministers have eyes but for what's bad about AV. I'm afraid that negative campaigning will have the effect of driving voters away. Being negative is never pretty and a positive message is always better appreciated. It may be good to start negative, because it is aggressive and let's one set the narrative, but sooner or later, voters will want to hear not why they should reject AV, but why they should retain First Past the Post.