Time to Put Voters in Control
We desperately need proportional representation as all those likely to read this post will agree., but it matters which system. In a book written by the late Enid Lakeman [1] at the time of the formation of the Liberal/SDP Alliance, a time when we may have had change[2], she distinguished between systems designed to give ‘fair shares to parties’ and those (notably STV) which ‘put votes in control’. AMS is an example of the former. STV is the prime example of the latter.
Until 1976 STV was the only PR system discussed in Britain, after which AMS was introduced and was promoted within the Labour Party [3]. The Make Votes Matter Alliance has avoided choosing between the two systems, instead devising and agreeing a Good Systems Agreement. While the Lib Dems continue to support STV, the need for support from within the Labour Party meant that AMS could not be excluded.
The adoption of AMS is only rational if voters and members of political parties understand what the parties stand for and trust their leaders. However both Tories and Labour have been captured by their right wings. I will not comment further on the Tories, but I believe the Labour Party has problems. Starmer’s style of leadership appears to be a mixture a mixture of deceit and unprincipled diktat.[4] This is something which the supposedly left of centre Guardian appears to be ignorant of [5]. Defenders of Starmer’s style of leadership would no doubt argue that the left is unrealistic; we are in fact governed by the propaganda of most mainstream media which still believes in neoliberalism.
Trust in parties in their current form is rapidly diminishing; should not the people be trusted? I suggest that the MVM Alliance revisit the Good Systems Agreement particularly in relation to point 6, Voter Choice. As currently worded it sets a very low bar [6]. It could be reworded to acknowledge that STV gives much more choice that any version of MMP (including AMS).
If STV is best for the country and its people, it will not suit the political elites. Increasingly, our ‘leaders’ have grown up in the Westminster bubble and are motivated increasingly by self interest, greed, self conceit, and the lust for power for its own sake.
The best chance for reform is if we have a hung parliament and the Lib Dems offer Labour a confidence and supply deal in exchange for action on PR. Starmer will not acknowledge that possibility publicly before the election; he aims to win an absolute majority. If in the event of a hung parliament Starmer comes to terms, well and good. If not a very unstable situation will arise, which may not favour Labour.
Another reason for being cautious about adopting AMS is that it is too similar to German MMP. There have been concerns about the state of German democracy.[7]. Although there is no clear evidence that MMP is to blame, many opponents of PR in Britain cite Germany.
Notes:
1. Lakeman. E, ‘Power to Elect: The Case for Proportional Representation’, Heinemann, 1982
2. In early 1982 the Liberal/SDP alliance briefly polled at 33% which could have given them an absolute majority. Then the Jingoism of the Falklands war intervened. Thatcher was saved.
3. Prior to 1976 STV was the only proportional system considered for Britain. All the evidence submitted to the Hansard Society Commission of that year was on that basis. However following the deadline for submission the secretary of the Commission, Miles Hudson evidently decided that STV was too threatening to the political elites. He rushed round Paris, Bonn and Dublin, concocted a simplified version of MMP, which he called AMS and sold it to all members of the commission except Liberal peer Nancy Seear. Hudson’s scheme was soon abandoned but the name AMS stuck.
4. Starmer’s deceit is exemplified by his undermining of Corbyn and the 10 pledges he made in his campaign for the party leadership, all of which were abandoned within a year. Since then he and his right wingers have (mostly successfully) sought to exclude all left wingers from selection list for choosing parliamentary candidates. This is regularly reported by SKWAWKBOX.
5. Martin Kettle, 17th May 2023, “Defying political orthodoxy, the leader believes he can win an election outright by reuniting his party’s working- and middle-class wings .” https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/17/keir-starmer-vision-new-labour-20-election
6. Point 6 of the Good Systems Agreement reads 6 Voter Choice: “Good systems allow voters a wide choice of parties, and allow voters to express preferences for people rather than just parties. Any lists used must be democratically determined” By contrast, under STV voters can rank candidates on any criteria, party, gender, race… or position on a particular issue. Parties would have an incentive to field a wide selection of candidates, but a candidate not selected by party A could stand as ‘Independent Party A’.
Money and Democracy 