London Fields # 91
First published Inpress (Issue # 1172), Melbourne on 4 May 2011, and Drum Media (Issue # 1058), Sydney on 3 May 2011
NB: Each column has a name, but these do not appear in print; printed versions may differ slightly to those displayed here
Were you aware than six out of ten Australians want to change their current electoral voting system to the one used in the UK? Neither was I, but this has been a key claim of the “No” campaign for the upcoming UK referendum. Saturation media coverage of a certain London event may have overshadowed it, but this has the potential to have far greater and longer-reaching effects on the future of the United Kingdom than the wedding of a possible future monarch. May 5th marks only the second national referendum in British history, on a potential change to the voting system. Currently British elections use First Past The Post (FPTP), a system where the candidate who receives the highest number of primary votes is elected, regardless of how few votes they receive. After the last indecisive UK election, the Tories and Liberal Democrats spent days trying to reach a compromise to form a coalition government, and voting reform was a key discussion. The LibDems wanted Proportional Representation (PR), but had to settle for a referendum to change from FPTP to AV (Alternative Vote). AV, also known as preferential voting, is very similar to what is used in Australia, except under AV you don’t have to rank all the candidates (single transferable vote).
It’s been a nasty campaign, full of disinformation. The “six out of ten Australians” figure came from a leading question put to 1202 people in a single survey conducted over three days last October. The “No” side points out only Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Australia use preferential voting and seem to imply that perhaps it is not quite democratic. They claim that AV will led to every government being a coalition, and that the change from FPTP would mean the end of “one person, one vote”. In truth AV allows you to vote for who you want to win the seat (rather than tactically vote against who you might want to keep out) so it’s closer to “one person, one meaningful vote“. The “No” campaign have also claimed AV would make it easier for the ultra right (and ultra white) BNP (British National Party) to gain seats, when the converse in actually true. The votes for any party other than the BNP would weigh more heavily under AV meaning they’d have to win 50% of the primary vote to get in. No wonder BNP supremo Nick Griffin has come out in favour of the “No” campaign, but they’re not trumpeting that.
There’s another Nick who’s not really wanted by either side - that’s Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the LibDems Nick Clegg. Clegg’s record of broken promises on issues such as tuition fees has seen him used as a reason against a “Yes” vote by the “No” side. The strangest thing in the campaign has been the weird cross-party partnerships it has set up - former Labour Home Secretary John Reid with the PM on one side, and the government’s Business Secretary Vince Cable with the leader of the opposition on the other. Yet as an Australian I find it galling to see aspersions cast on a democratic system that has only failed once (when the monarch’s representative interfered in 1975), as though it was a rigged system of a backward and corrupt banana republic. In the UK David Cameron has created an unprecedented 117 new peers for the House of Lords in his first year in office (Tony Blair averaged out at 37 a year, and Gordon Brown a mere 12), which amounts to gerrymandering on a grand scale. Instead of criticising the Australian system, they should instead be learning from it; a system where the upper house is elected by the people, and elections take place on weekends, rather than during the week, to make it easier for working people to vote.
David Cameron has variously described AV as undemocratic, obscure, unfair and crazy. We’re told that it’s too complicated and expensive, and a bit hard for us to understand. In one speech he quoted Winston Churchill who saw it as a system where “the most worthless votes go to the most worthless candidate”. Yet it’s how he became party leader! David Davis received the largest number of votes in the first round of the last Conservative Party leadership contest in 2005, so under FPTP he might be the PM now. What the “No” campaign has failed to tell us is that they want us to keep a system which the parties don’t want or use themselves. Sadly the largest vote next Thursday is likely to be apathy, and then the possibility of positive change will disappear for many years to come.
© James McGalliard 2011
Inpress: Published on page 44
Drum: Published on page 48
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Saturday, 15 May 2010
Electioneering
London Fields # 78
First published Inpress, Melbourne on 19 May 2010
NB: Each column has a name, but these do not appear in print; printed versions may differ slightly to those displayed here
Watching the media coverage of the recent UK General Election, I was reminded of a 1970’s student film called (something like) ”Fraser Opens Monash Toilets“ (although I couldn‘t find reference to it on Google). Anyway, the film in question features reportage from the front line of a student protest against Malcolm Fraser’s campus visit - the violent camera shakes indicating a thronging mass seemingly on the verge of riot. That is until you see the long shot which shows that all the fracas and pushing is actually the TV cameramen jostling each other to make it appear as though they were at the centre of a mêlée. Certainly I’ve never seen an election where the depiction of the situation varied so dramatically depending on the source which was providing the information.
Electoral reform had been a major issue throughout the campaigns and the end results seemed to make the need for an overhaul of the current system even clearer. As the saga unfolded, everything else became muddier; an election with no clear winner, talk of minority governments, rainbow coalitions, and possible stalemates which would lead to another election. There was much that made it feel like a US Presidential election, with leaders rather than parties being the focus, and three live 90 minute televised debates between these three leaders (of the main English parties, much to the annoyance of Welsh and Scottish parties who were not offered a part). Catchphrases from the Obama campaign crept in as well, and on the election day itself, The Sun featured a reworking Shepard Fairey’s iconic poster as its cover with Obama replaced by an image of David Cameron.
Yet there was no landmark victory. With no clear winner, Gordon Brown remained as Prime Minister, while the only clear losers were the British National Party who were comprehensively trounced in their attempt to gain a seat in Barking, and in the local elections for Barking and Dagenham Council, all 12 BNP councillors lost their seats. The only decisive victory came in Brighton, where the Green Party won their first ever seat. In London, Labour actually did well - my seat recorded a swing of over 5% swing in their favour, and they gained control of eight more councils in the local elections. After five days and much horse bartering, Brown resigned and a coalition government was formed between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. And while it seemed that the nation as a whole has been more politicised by the live debates and ongoing saga of the hung parliament, it didn’t stop a large number of viewers contacting the BBC to complain that they had bumped popular soaps EastEnders and Holby City off their schedules to show these historic events live. The next morning saw The Sun relegate it Page Three girl to page 15 (well it had lots of photos of other types of tit to put on the preceding pages).
Amongst all the mess, one thing remains abundantly clear: no one got the government for which they had voted. Perhaps this will be a good thing? Certainly the scrapping of the ID card seems to be a good start, but I fear for the future of the BBC, and worry about the changes in the no confidence rules tied into the new fixed five year parliamentary terms. The other certainty is that the mother of all parliaments is desperately in need of renovation. This last election saw the largest voter turnout since the Blair Labour government came to power, but still only 65.1% of those on the roll bothered to make their voices heard (although in a travesty of democratic process, some hundreds of voters were left unable to vote due to understaffed polling stations). The UK system of first past the post even lead to a council seat being decided on a coin toss as both candidates had received exactly the same number of votes. It seems likely that there will be a move to Alternative Vote (like the Australian preferential vote) with other possibilities of reform (proportional representation) going to committee and perhaps referendum, and an elected upper house even further away. The Liberal Democrats offered themselves to the voting public as an alternative to the two major parties, and now find themselves actively aligned in government with one of them. Only time will tell if those who voted for them this time around may find themselves humming The Who‘s “Won’t Get Fooled Again” in 2015.
© James McGalliard 2010
First published Inpress, Melbourne on 19 May 2010
NB: Each column has a name, but these do not appear in print; printed versions may differ slightly to those displayed here
Watching the media coverage of the recent UK General Election, I was reminded of a 1970’s student film called (something like) ”Fraser Opens Monash Toilets“ (although I couldn‘t find reference to it on Google). Anyway, the film in question features reportage from the front line of a student protest against Malcolm Fraser’s campus visit - the violent camera shakes indicating a thronging mass seemingly on the verge of riot. That is until you see the long shot which shows that all the fracas and pushing is actually the TV cameramen jostling each other to make it appear as though they were at the centre of a mêlée. Certainly I’ve never seen an election where the depiction of the situation varied so dramatically depending on the source which was providing the information.
Electoral reform had been a major issue throughout the campaigns and the end results seemed to make the need for an overhaul of the current system even clearer. As the saga unfolded, everything else became muddier; an election with no clear winner, talk of minority governments, rainbow coalitions, and possible stalemates which would lead to another election. There was much that made it feel like a US Presidential election, with leaders rather than parties being the focus, and three live 90 minute televised debates between these three leaders (of the main English parties, much to the annoyance of Welsh and Scottish parties who were not offered a part). Catchphrases from the Obama campaign crept in as well, and on the election day itself, The Sun featured a reworking Shepard Fairey’s iconic poster as its cover with Obama replaced by an image of David Cameron.
Yet there was no landmark victory. With no clear winner, Gordon Brown remained as Prime Minister, while the only clear losers were the British National Party who were comprehensively trounced in their attempt to gain a seat in Barking, and in the local elections for Barking and Dagenham Council, all 12 BNP councillors lost their seats. The only decisive victory came in Brighton, where the Green Party won their first ever seat. In London, Labour actually did well - my seat recorded a swing of over 5% swing in their favour, and they gained control of eight more councils in the local elections. After five days and much horse bartering, Brown resigned and a coalition government was formed between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. And while it seemed that the nation as a whole has been more politicised by the live debates and ongoing saga of the hung parliament, it didn’t stop a large number of viewers contacting the BBC to complain that they had bumped popular soaps EastEnders and Holby City off their schedules to show these historic events live. The next morning saw The Sun relegate it Page Three girl to page 15 (well it had lots of photos of other types of tit to put on the preceding pages).
Amongst all the mess, one thing remains abundantly clear: no one got the government for which they had voted. Perhaps this will be a good thing? Certainly the scrapping of the ID card seems to be a good start, but I fear for the future of the BBC, and worry about the changes in the no confidence rules tied into the new fixed five year parliamentary terms. The other certainty is that the mother of all parliaments is desperately in need of renovation. This last election saw the largest voter turnout since the Blair Labour government came to power, but still only 65.1% of those on the roll bothered to make their voices heard (although in a travesty of democratic process, some hundreds of voters were left unable to vote due to understaffed polling stations). The UK system of first past the post even lead to a council seat being decided on a coin toss as both candidates had received exactly the same number of votes. It seems likely that there will be a move to Alternative Vote (like the Australian preferential vote) with other possibilities of reform (proportional representation) going to committee and perhaps referendum, and an elected upper house even further away. The Liberal Democrats offered themselves to the voting public as an alternative to the two major parties, and now find themselves actively aligned in government with one of them. Only time will tell if those who voted for them this time around may find themselves humming The Who‘s “Won’t Get Fooled Again” in 2015.
© James McGalliard 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
