miserable little compromiser

So some MP’s are annoyed at attempts to bump up the vote for Nick Clegg’s miserable little compromise by staging the referendum on the same day as Scottish and Welsh elections (and think how desperate you must be for that to be your strategy to stuff the ballot box). 

Here at the house of B & T, opinions differ. I intend to let the miserable little compromise crawl off and die in a ditch without any participation from me. If the Tories want to fluff up their appendage in some way, they are perfectly entitled to do so. But there’s no need for me to waste my time on this project. This kind of division of the spoils nonsense needs to be kept in house, if anything does. 

Mrs T, however, is more or less in favour of AV, but would crawl over broken glass laced with cyanide right now to register opposition to any proposal put forward by Nick Clegg, possibly including a proposal to give her All the Money in the World, let alone this miserable little compromise he plans to waste everyone’s time with. I may just join her at that, what with that sly bit of gerrymandering over constituency sizes that he’s put in with his miserable little compromise. 

No moral here; just a datapoint from one household. Except that, the ishoos aside, this is at least partly a referendum on “how much of a wanker Nick Clegg is.”

Comments

[ejh]

but would crawl over broken glass laced with cyanide right now to register opposition to any proposal put forward by Nick Clegg, possibly including a proposal to give her All the Money in the World

This does actually remind me of my days in the DSS section of CPSA when the union was run by people who were even bigger wankers than Nick Clegg (no, really). All sorts of entertaining things went on including one particular instance when the old practice of balloting the members on an offer with the possible answers "Yes" or "No" was replaced by the presentation of a ballot paper with the options "Yes" and "No and an immediate all-out-strike with no strike pay".

[Charlie]

I'm almost impressed by the relentlessness of the Tory efforts to thoroughly kibosh the referendum, mainly through fixing the result. I still think they're being total jerks, though. What about Cameron saying he'd campaign for a no? He could at least announce that he'd stay out of things.

I have no idea what the Lib Dems are up to. It'd surely be tactically savvy to be acting like total arseholes, week in, week out - daring the Tories to call it quits on the coalition. That way you both make it crystal that you're not to be taken for granted and you get what you want. A coalition where you get none of your policies through isn't worth being part of. Or is it that they like the Jags, red boxes, etc.? Or have I missed the point, and these policies are the policies the Lib Dems want?

[Alex]

Mrs T, however, is more or less in favour of AV, but would crawl over broken glass laced with cyanide right now to register opposition to any proposal put forward by Nick Clegg, possibly including a proposal to give her All the Money in the World, let alone this miserable little compromise he plans to waste everyone’s time with. I may just join her at that, what with that sly bit of gerrymandering over constituency sizes that he’s put in with his miserable little compromise.

I agree with Mrs T.

Actually, I plan to vote against it, and possibly even to campaign against it. The notion of a broader-based government has become significantly less attractive, and there's the general anti-bullshit principle. Also, I want the Lib Dems to get the full value of the backlash without the cushioning effect of the transition to AV.

[Phil]

That way you both make it crystal that you're not to be taken for granted and you get what you want.

Cf. Sunny on whether the Left should denounce the Lib Dems Tory traitors or not. (His conclusion was that this approach would polarise and burn bridges and generally be all negative and mean; mine is that it would signal that the Lib Dems can't take left support for granted and make it slightly more likely that they'll trim to the left - in other words a win-win.) "Let's engage constructively in a spirit of mature responsibility, and ask for what we want at a later date" never works.

[Alex]

See the difference between Teh Special Relationship and the relationship between the US and France.

If your support is automatic, it's worth nothing. Also, they keep more independence of action through refusing to agree. It's a twofer.

[john b]

Hmm. Wouldn't the existence of AV make the emergence of a real left-wing alternative party to Labour more feasible? (datapoint: the Australian Greens get 15-20% of first preference votes, because people can give their second preference to Labor and avoid letting the assorted right-wing nutters in...)

[Phil]

Very, very slightly more feasible, and even then it would have to be a party with a strong local base and a strong ex-Labour appeal. So it might help the current Respect or the Socialist Party to get an MP or two, but it'd be useless for the old Respect, the old Socialist Alliance, NO2EU/TUSC or (perhaps more to the point) the Greens - all of whom could stand to gain under a proportional system like AV+.

[Phil]

...or rather, for all of the above except the Greens, could have stood to gain under a proportional system. AV also makes a broad-based BNP breakthrough harder to achieve, which I suppose should count in its favour.

[Marcus]

I'm a die-hard STVer and will have to hold my nose to vote for AV.

But please remember this. The difference is important to us political wonks - it doesn't register much with the man on the Clapham omnibus. If the referendum fails, the dominant narrative won't be "The people have rejected AV". It will be "The people have rejected reform". FPTP will be deemed to have democratic endorsement. Reform of any kind will be kicked into the long grass for at least a generation.

AV is at best a small step in the right direction, and may not even always produce more proportionate results (though that depends on how you define proportionality). But it's undeniably more democratic than FPTP. Also, it's a big organisational shakeup. To move on from there to STV would be much more radical in its effect, but much simpler to implement.

I think part of the problem with this coalition is that Britain has forgotten how to *do* coalitions. The LDs have become a slavish partner because the country, including them, *expects* government to exhibit a high degree of unity that single party majorities have accustomed us to. That doesn't mean that future coalitions have to be like this one.

We must campaign as hard as possible to get ALL possible reforms on the ballot, not just AV. And if AV passes, we must continue to push for further reform. BUT if, next 5th May, we are faced with the choice of AV or FPTP, remember: if you vote for FPTP, you are, well, *voting for FPTP*. You'd think people would spot that.