Yes campaign to Beckett – why won’t you defend First Past The Post?

By Mark Ferguson / @markfergusonuk

The Yes to AV campaign have written to NO2AV President Margaret Beckett, asking why the No campaign won’t defend First Past The Post. The letter comes as a poll for ComRes suggests that that the Yes campaign is winning the argument on electoral reform – and support could rise further.

——————

Dear Margaret,

WHY WON’T THE NO CAMPAIGN DEFEND FIRST PAST THE POST?

I write this letter in sorrow rather than anger.

Ahead of May’s referendum it is only right that both those of us who want change, and those of you seeking to preserve the status quo get the chance to debate our issues fully so that people can make an informed choice.

So far our spokespeople have met on just a handful of occasions on both broadcast and in print, indeed you and I spoke together on Newsnight before Christmas.

Those occasions leave me with this question – what exactly is your argument to keep First Past the Post?

I have listened to recordings of our sides respective appearances on television and radio many, many times. I have read and re-read the newspaper articles and yet I still cannot make out what you are saying.

For example, when asked why if AV was a good enough system for MPs to use in the House of Commons and for political parties to elect their leaders, it is not good enough for people to elect a government you said it was because this was a “different type of election”.

Indeed when she was asked the question Emily Thornberry said it was a matter of “horses for courses”. In this context who do you see as the horse and what is the course?

You also seem confused when you say that the adoption of AV will lead to more coalitions, but in the next breath say it will lead to more landslide election results. Which is it?

In a recent article in the Independent on Sunday, Jane Kennedy had a rather curious piece which didn’t seem to defend FPTP at all. She suggested that under AV some voters get more than one vote. You and I know that’s not true.

And if you don’t, can I ask you did Labour members who supported Diane Abbott get five votes while supporters of Ed Miliband just got one? If that is the case, I have to ask why you, who was a distinguished deputy leader of the Labour Party, allowed your party to adopt and continue with such a system.

Jane further asserts that AV would lead to more ‘hung’ parliaments. Again, you must know that is not the case. Australia has had half the number of ‘hung’ parliaments the UK has had over a comparable period.

And as I am sure you read in the IPPR’s recent report on First Past the Post, changes over thirty years in the voting patterns of the British people mean that under FPTP ‘hung’ parliaments are likely to become the norm.

Jane then goes on to assert that the AV system which members of the House of Commons use regularly and which is used by almost every political party and countless civic bodies and businesses would be too complicated for the British public.

When did your opinion of the British people’s intelligence sink so low?

I think there is a need for clarity and honesty in this debate. So let’s have some.

We in the ‘Yes’ campaign would like to hold a public debate with you as soon as possible.

Any time, any place, anywhere, as they say.

We will, of course, give you the time to try to come up with a logical, consistent and coherent argument.

But the public deserve a better standard of debate than you have been able to provide them with so far, and we are determined they hear truthful and honest arguments.

Yours sincerely

Jonathan Bartley