Leader: Yes to AV

Published on Thursday 24 June 2010 14:18

ONE surefire way to save money in the NHS would be to stop prescribing sleeping tablets and instead advise insomniacs to read up on proportional representation electoral systems.

A few minutes spent comparing the pros and cons of single transferable votes, top-up lists and, of course, the delights of the D'Hondt principle would send patients to the land of nod far more effectively than two Mogadon.

It would, therefore, be perfectly understandable if the British public was to regard the looming referendum campaign on the Alternative Vote (AV) for Westminster elections as a bigger turn-off than ITV's Daybreak. The mistake, however, would be to assume the referendum was not important and not worth bothering about. That is simply not the case. The AV referendum to be held on 5 May, the same day as the Scottish Parliament elections, will have a profound effect on the way we conduct politics in this country for decades to come.

Let us be clear, though, about the nature of the choice facing us. This is no academic debate conducted with a clean sheet of paper, designing a system from scratch and picking whatever methods would be our preferred ideal. Politics is rarely thus, and in this case is even further removed from that scenario than usual. The AV system on offer has many critics, even - some would say especially - among PR campaigners. Most enthusiasts prefer a system where the priority is ensuring proportionality across a region or a country, not the AV priority of electing someone with majority support within a single constituency.

The fact that it is AV on offer and not one of the other systems is the product of three specific factors: the offer on PR made by the last Labour government to woo the Lib Dems; the arithmetic of the general election result; and the mechanics of the deal between David Cameron and Nick Clegg that delivered the coalition administration. It is the product of specific circumstances. It is also the only game in town. In the world of realpolitik an academic debate on whether a different form of PR would be preferable is just that - purely academic. Nor is it wise to pass up on AV in the hope of an opportunity to introduce a different form of PR in the future. Who can say when such an opportunity might arise? In five years time? Ten? Twenty?

The only question worth asking is whether British politics would be the better for AV, or better off without it. And that question cannot be answered honestly without a candid recognition of the poor standing of politicians and the political system in the eyes of the British public, whether its cause is the Iraq war, the financial crisis, the expenses scandal, tuition fees, or whatever. If AV is rejected by a combination of opposition, apathy and misunderstanding, and Westminster sticks with first past the post, the message that will be heard by much of the British public is that our political class has no intention of reforming itself, thank you very much, and things are perfectly fine as they are.

This is not just unacceptable, it is dangerous. Public anger about the way the country is governed has not abated as far as many in our parties would like to think. MPs become complacent at their peril. Much still has to be done before public faith in the system of government is restored. We, therefore, have no hesitation in backing a "Yes" vote in the referendum.

AV will be a vast improvement on Westminster politics as currently constituted. No vote will be a wasted vote. Every MP will have the consent of a majority of the voters he or she represents. Through this, voters will feel better connected to the process of choosing their representative in the Commons. And - politicians beware - voters will therefore have a higher level of expectation when their MP makes it to the green benches. It's a Yes.