Colin Firth or Jeff Bridges? (or how you should vote on AV)

The Labour movement column

By Anthony Painter

At the end of the day it may come down to Colin Firth versus Jeff Bridges. It’s uplifting period romanticism or gritty, dark realism. It’s touchy-feely humanism or dark comedy. The King’s Speech or True Grit? No, I’m not talking the Oscars. I’m talking about which side to back in the AV referendum.

I have to confess that I have no idea what Jeff Bridges thinks of the Alternative Vote. I’d be surprised if Jeff Bridges knows what he thinks about the Alternative Vote. We do know that Colin Firth has joined luvviedom in backing a voting system change to AV. I also know he backed Nick Clegg at the election. I also know that when the casting for ‘The DPM’s Speech’ comes along there won’t be an actor in the land who will pip him to that role.

Rationally though, surely it has to be The King’s Speech and Colin Firth for the Oscars? They are British and it’s all very nice. It’s exceedingly dull that it’s yet another period drama. It would nice if we could as a nation be represented on screen by a class other than the aristocracy or the Trainspotting marginalised and alienated. Is class all we have to offer the world culturally? But there are sound rational reasons for wanting to see Firth lift the golden statuette.

It is the same with AV. It is logically and rationally a better system. It increases local accountability as MPs are forced to reach beyond their base and a narrow swing electorate. It can be a bit unpredictable in impact. For example, a logical case can be made that Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative candidates could have won the Oldham and Saddleworth by-election under AV. However, all in all it is a better system for ensuring local accountability of MPs which, in my book, is a good thing.

And if I were a purely left-brained rational type that would be the end of the story. I’d take the rough with the smooth as overall the latter outweighs the former. But wait, something is twitching my amygdala. There is something about Colin Firth that is vaguely irritating. I don’t know what it is. I just don’t feel any sense of connection to him in the way that, for instance, I feel a connection to the on-screen characters that Jeff Bridges plays. Maybe he’s just appeared in too many Jane Austen adaptations or Bridget Jones-esque romcoms. In fact, he’s appeared in most of the films I’ve loathed over the last two decades: from Love Actually to Shakespeare in Love. Not only do those things do nothing for me, I will actively leave a room when they are on. And like Nick Clegg with David Cameron, he will be forever fused in my mind with Hugh Grant. It is a deeply animalistic, emotional reaction. There is little I can do to help it.

This is not pride but it is prejudice. And that is not a good way to make an important decision. Just because the silent irritant factor of Colin Firth is high, that is no reason to not want my compatriot to win an Oscar. Just because I’d love for Nick Clegg to have egg on his face is not a good reason for not backing AV. So the left brain wins hands down and I should back AV right?

There is also a moral dimension to this question which has been conveniently missed. I got involved in politics because, sorry to sound pompous, I believe that we can achieve a better type of society. I saw (and still see) the Labour party as one the most important institutions for achieving that change. To achieve that change they need to be in government. As is the case with all morality, this is both an instinct and rational calculation.

And this is where the affecting method acting of Jeff Bridges feels closer to the mark. The simple fact is that AV increases the likelihood of coalitions. At the moment, it is difficult to see a viable coalition partner for Labour. The Liberal Democrats helping out with the party’s policy review are welcome but that is nothing like the reassurance that is needed that the Liberal Democrats are possible coalition partners in, say, 2015.

Moreover, the Conservative and Liberal Democrat vote is starting to interact – as is evidenced in Oldham and Saddleworth – in the way the Labour and Liberal Democrat vote used to (though we are talking a very different Liberal Democrat vote, post coalition.) So a yes to AV for Labour supporters – those who believe that a Labour government is important to furthering their moral agenda – is an act of faith that a viable coalition partner will emerge, i.e. the Liberal Democrats will repent this coalition and that is just not convincing at this stage.

It is a system that if the current situation continues then Labour will be severely disadvantaged in terms of forming a future government. There is no predicting what might actually happen but that seems to be the logic of the current position.

So from a Labour perspective which after all is what Labour people are motivated by (has anyone ever joined Labour just to secure a new voting system?), it is easy to understand why many are concluding that AV is not for them. There is a powerful case to support the true grit of Jeff Bridges. Context matters. And too much is uncertain in this context. Unless there is a louder and stronger voice of dissent within the Liberal Democrats at the actions of this coalition then it is difficult to see how to end up hoping for Firth over Bridges. Crazy hearts trump stuttering monarchs.