Being Bathonian – or a reason why I say #Yes2AV
January 2nd, 2011
My family was not one much involved in party politics, but one of my earliest memories of such things was my father remarking that he would be “voting Lib Dem to keep the Tories out”. Since 1992, this has proved a reasonably good system – Bath has returned Don Foster to his seat time and time again. I haven’t lived in Bath since 2002 – but my family still does, and some of my friends. They’re reasonably satisfied with Don Foster, as the election results would suggest. People roll their eyes a little at the fact that he doesn’t live in the constituency, but he has been OK.
But they’re cross now. I’m not going to try and predict how many people voted for Foster on merit, or name recognition, or simply because he’s not Tory – but that third group, a group which many of my friends and family fall into, feel cheated. I’m not here to argue how good a job or not Don Foster is doing – but many people feel as though they cast a decisive “not Tory” vote, won, and got Tory anyway.
One defence of first-past-the-post is that the system can’t be blamed for the fact that people vote tactically, as many did in Bath. After all, if the majority of people really did want another candidate, they’d get that candidate if they voted for them. But I just don’t think it’s that simple. If you are left-leaning and live in Bath, you know that every vote for Labour, or the Green Party, is one that would otherwise go to the Lib Dems if the first two weren’t in the picture. You also know enough about your fellow Bathonians to know how they have behaved in previous elections – it’s a Lib Dem/Tory marginal. You’re not a campaigner, you’re not a politico…you’re not a Conservative. You might prefer Labour, or the Greens – but you vote Lib Dem, because you’re not a Conservative.
A lot of the politicos I know who aren’t in favour of AV find this hard to understand – that is, caring more about what you aren’t than what you are. “Why would I vote for anyone other than Labour?”, they say, puzzled, failing to recognise that many, many people may see bits of themselves and their values in multiple candidates – and, powerfully, none of themselves in another, popular candidate.
And people do, everywhere. And the effects of not being able to express that under FPTP is self-fulfilling – if you’re never voting for what you want, and getting something that is never more than “acceptable” or “less bad”, then what you are (in voting terms) just doesn’t seem to matter. Of course, there are far greater issues that lead to political disillusionment – but the solution to this one is really quite easy, comparatively, and I’d like to get it out of the way.
So how would AV solve that? Well, it takes away that risk, if you like – that feeling that by voting with your heart and your values, you run the risk of losing something satisfactory to something wholly unsatisfactory. In Bath, you could vote Labour, or for the Green Party as your first preference, put your “safe choice” (in this case, the Lib Dems) as second or third preference, knowing that in the event that you are in a crazy minority, your “safe” vote will be redistributed.
I describe Bath because I know it well – but to me, saying #Yes2AV is saying yes to choice, yes to voting with your heart as well as your head, and yes to votes that matter – to you as well as to the election of your elected representatives.
Categories: Labour Regeneration, Parliament Regeneration
Tags: bath, don foster, electoral reform
The PLP may be angry, but Harman was right on Woolas
November 9th, 2010
This blog was originally posted on LabourList.
Loud whispers have been emerging from last night’s meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party, as MPs turned on deputy leader Harriet Harman for her strong public stance on Phil Woolas. Woolas was convicted of lying to voters during the campaign to retain his parliamentary seat of Oldham & Saddleworth. He has since reported his intention to seek a judicial review.
But Harman, speaking to Andrew Marr, made it clear that the outcome of the judicial review would make little difference to Woolas’ future in the Labour Party. “It is not part of Labour’s politics for somebody to be telling lies to get themselves elected,” she said, firmly. I would have gone further – it wasn’t just the lies, or even just the racial nature of those lies – but the cynical and calculated way he and his election team played on, and even enhanced, real racial tensions in their own community.
It would seem that Harriet’s words did not go down well with a number of Labour MPs. Joe Murphy, writing for the London Evening Standard, reported that these MPs were “angry that she virtually killed off Mr Woolas’ hopes of standing again for Labour in an interview over the weekend.” It has been pointed out that this is not exactly an endorsement for what Woolas did – rather, anger with Harriet for arriving at a decision on the party’s behalf before the judicial process was complete.
Speaking on behalf of people before you consult them is one thing, but does the stage of the judicial process really matter? When Woolas and his campaigning team put that leaflet together, they associated its message with the Labour Party and its values. That may well be legal (particularly if you succeed in changing the law to make it legal) – but that doesn’t mean it represents Labour, or that we have to accept it and move on. When someone uses racial tensions to gain votes, we owe it to our values and the values of people who voted for us to ensure that such practices do not occur.
That is why I agree with Harriet, judicial review or no. There is absolutely no doubt that Phil Woolas endorsed that leaflet, bearing that message, during the general election campaign. As such, he must be accountable for those actions.
I am forcibly reminded of the behaviour of certain individuals in the banking sector – they failed, but there were no real consequences to that. Now, they are back to their bad old ways, somehow endorsed by the taxpayer. Similarly, if there are not meaningful consequences to playing on racial tensions to win elections, then it will carry on happening – and our communities will foot the social bill.
So price up Labour’s values, defenders of Woolas – because that is what he is on the hook for. If he doesn’t pay, who should?
Categories: Labour Regeneration, Parliament Regeneration, Screaming Howlers
Tags: andrew marr, campaigning, community cohesion, harriet harman, judicial review, phil woolas, racial tension
This time next month, we will know who the new leader of the Labour movement will be. We’ve been discussing it since May, and I know we’re more than ready to get behind whoever gets elected. Naturally, I and many other people are working hard to make sure that it is Ed Miliband, who has painted a future that I am keen to help bring into reality.
So I’d like to invite you to join Birmingham’s newest MPs Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham Ladywood) and Jack Dromey (Birmingham Erdington) at 7pm on Tuesday August 31st for a night of meeting like-minded people, nibbles, and importantly, helping us make that final big push for Ed Miliband before the ballots go out on September 1st. We’ll be in the Birmingham & Midlands Institute, in the lovely Dickens Room, from 7pm until 9pm.
If it’s OK with everyone, I’d like them to bring their mobiles so that we can each make 30 calls for Ed to the people we share our community with.
You don’t have to be a member of the Labour Party to want the Labour movement to have the right leader – and if you think that that is Ed Miliband, we would welcome your help and company. So fill in the form below to let me know that you’re coming and, more importantly, come! And bring friends.
Looking forward to meeting you!
Categories: Labour Regeneration
Tags: campaigning, ed miliband, jack dromey, shabana mahmood
#EM4Leader: good reading material
July 8th, 2010
Plenty of Labour members are still mulling over their Labour leader options, and I am glad that they have been given the space and time to do so. After all, we’re not just looking for a Leader of the Opposition, important though that is. We’re looking for a Prime Minister, someone who understands their people, and can represent them with competency, honesty and dedication at all levels. As you are aware, I believe that Ed Miliband is the best candidate for that job, and here’s a bit of reading (and watching) material that says why:
Pushing for equality in marriage, overturning the gay blood ban and tackling homophobia in Pink News.
Ed tells Decca Aitkenhead of the Guardian of why we must end the politics of triangulation, and why we can’t blame the electorate for Labour’s election loss.
In a frank and extensive interview with the New Statesman, Ed talks about future coalitions, and why we can’t allow the spectre of New Labour to close down debate.
In an interview with Polly Toynbee, Ed talks about being a constructive opposition, his stance on Iraq and why climate change must remain high on the agenda:
Ed speaks to the Western Morning News about the rights of agricultural workers, and why constituency boundaries should respect local identities.
Here’s when Ed Miliband weighed in on the prison reform debate. “I don’t think we should try to out-right the right on crime.”
Left Foot Forward interview: Ed talks in depth about the economy, climate change, and why inequality should always be a priority.
LibCon interview: Ed talks about mutualism, feminism and being British and English.
When Ed spoke on the role of the state, the individual and the future of social democracy, it represented an important shift in his leadership campaign – why tackling inequality was his priority, how he envisaged our economy of the future and why we should all be able to choose to work to live, rather than being forced to live to work.
His response to the BP oil crisis reveals his long-term outlook and global wisdom.
An excellent piece of debate, supported by Rachel Reeves, where Chris Huhne’s economic scaremongering is torn to pieces:
Endorsements from Neil Kinnock and Tony Benn.
“I would keep the top rate of income tax at 50p permanently”
An interesting piece in the New Statesman that confirms the whispers pre-election – Ed wanted to be more radical in the 2010 manifesto.
It already feels like so long ago when Ed announced his candidacy, and he has emphasised the message of fairness and how that must inform all of our policy consistently since that time. But I think this clip also shows something else about Ed, that is, how he makes people feel: inspired, secure and happy.
Speech to the 2009 Labour Party conference:
Stay tuned for more links as I have time to add them…
Categories: Labour Regeneration
Tags: chris huhne, climate change, economics, ed miliband, education, fabian society, mutualism, oil, rachel reeves, rehabilitation, welfare
