The Gritquoy Blog

My second ex husband and father of my younger daughter has just sent her the following article explaining his very strong views on the AV referendum. I have decided to copy it here – they are his words, unedited, not mine:

As someone who has always been interested in politics, the referendum on Britain’s voting system presents me with a dilemma I have never encountered before. I have opinions about a lot of political issues: sometimes quite strong ones. But I also have the propensity of a liberal – some would see it as a weakness – to see the other side of an argument.

I strongly believe in controlling the deficit, because I don’t think we should be forcing our children to pay for our failures, but I understand the “stimulus” argument as well. I think personal tax rates of up to 50% are reasonable, but recognise the counter-argument of those who think top-earners might relocate to avoid paying tax. I like the idea of universal benefits, including free access to higher education, but also see the merits of less expensive means-tested arrangements that target the least well-off.

When it comes to voting, however, I am plagued by certainty. I’m sorry: I can’t help it! I simply don’t believe that anyone who genuinely believes in democracy could possibly argue in favour of the first past the post (FPTP) system.

The first general election I remember clearly was in February 1974. The Conservatives came top (11.9 million votes – 297 seats) and Labour “won” (11.6 million votes – 301 seats). The Liberals got 14 seats for 6.1 million votes. I concluded very speedily that my history teacher, who used to extol the virtues of British “democracy”, had somehow got it horribly wrong! 37 years later, I still think this.

The democracy test – 50% plus one

People are influenced by various factors when they cast a vote, but the primary aim is clearly to elect a party or individual. For this to work, the vote has to have a value. In an ideal world, all votes would be of equal value but in reality, no electoral system, even the most proportional one, manages to achieve that. Votes will always be wasted including those given to candidates or parties with very low levels of support, and those cast for winners in excess of what they need. But to pass any reasonable democracy test, a system must guarantee that a certain proportion of the votes cast actually have a value in electing someone. And the bare minimum is surely 50% plus one, the threshold of an Alternative Vote (AV) election in a single member seat.

Under First Past the Post (FPTP), all the votes cast for losing candidates are wasted. So too are all excess votes cast for winners. The only votes that do count are for the winner equal to one more than the score of the second placed candidate. I haven’t done the calculation, but a reasonable estimate is that around a quarter of those who turned out cast a worthwhile ballot in 2010. The other 75% needn’t have bothered. In fact, there hasn’t been a single constituency election since universal franchise where more than half the votes counted (the closest we came to it was in Ilkeston in 1931 when exactly 50% of the votes counted, the National Labour candidate beating Labour by two votes in a straight fight).

It should be obvious that a system that only gives value to a minority of votes is not democratic. So why is it that most people – including many supporters of fair voting – think otherwise? One part of the answer is that Britain has all the other essential facets of true democracy : a secret ballot; freedom to campaign and express opinions; the right to form parties and stand in elections, and so on. These are things that people long for in many other countries, and the fact that they are deeply entrenched in the British political landscape is something we should be proud of. A second explanation is that FPTP has, until now, led to regular peaceful changes of government. You can see why people might instinctively accept the equation “election leading to change of government = democracy” but this is clearly flawed when so few votes have value. The correct equation is “election leading to change of government = not dictatorship”.

First past the post falls at the first hurdle

Essentially, what Britain has at the moment is pluralism, in the sense that everyone can take part. But on the democracy test, because the vast majority of votes end up having no value, FPTP falls at the first hurdle.

David Cameron has taken this most powerful of arguments against FPTP… to argue for its retention! He makes the astonishing claim that votes have equal value under the existing rules and that AV somehow gives an unfair advantage to electors whose initial vote has no value allowing their second preference to come into play. I hope he doesn’t actually believe this. Because if he does, then it’s time we introduced basic maths tests for Prime Ministers.

Other arguments from the “no” side are equally absurd. The idea that AV will help extremists get elected comes from the same school as the Prime Minister’s “equal value” claim. “Take an argument for AV that resonates with voters, pretend it’s ours and hope no-one notices.” It is blindingly obvious that FPTP makes it easier for extremists, because the election threshold is lower.

Then there is the claim that AV is too complicated. This is deeply insulting to English and Welsh voters (the Scots and Northern Irish are already allowed to vote this way so are presumably deemed capable of it). “We think you can manage an ‘X’ but ’1,2,3′ is obviously a bit too much for you to handle!”

No-brainer

In the referendum, the choice is clearly limited by what was possible in the coalition agreement. There is no point in arguing for proportional systems that aren’t on offer. At the moment, single member representation remains sacrosanct, and this will not deliver proportionality except by pure chance. So the question is whether AV or FPTP is better for Britain? If you regard democracy as something fundamental, the answer is a no-brainer. AV delivers 650 (or 600 in the future) individual outcomes each of which is democratic in the context of the constituency in question. FPTP does not. AV doubles the number of votes that have value to 50% plus one in every seat (excluding those who decide to “drop out” of voting by expressing no further preference – which is perfectly legitimate).

So for me, the question effectively being asked in the referendum is: “Do you want democratic elections for the UK Parliament?” Incredibly, it looks increasingly likely that the British people will say “no”. A lot of people on the “yes” side seem ambivalent, half-hearted and apologetic about AV. They need to come out with all guns blazing, highlighting in particular, the grotesque way that FPTP cheats voters. Alternative Vote is greatly superior because it greatly reduces the number of pointless trips to the polling station. And, to counter the most ridiculous argument I have heard so far from the “no” side, it is a lot more “British” – assuming that we still believe “fair play” to be one of our defining national characteristics.

It’s a few years since I’ve taken an active part in election campaigns – ever since I stopped being in charge 24/7 of the Scottish Liberal Democrat website, in fact.

So I have surprised myself this week because I haven’t even been following politics closely for the past year.

But when I heard the news, at the weekend, that fellow Lib Dem Hugh O’Donnell MSP had resigned from the party and is standing as an independent candidate for the Central Scotland Regional List, I immediately emailed him to wish him luck and found myself offering to do a website for him!

The website is up and running at www.hughodonnell.org.uk and here I am, beavering away on his behalf – who’d have thought it less than a week ago? We never know what’s around the next corner, do we?

Regular readers will know that I am no longer following UK politics closely having become, frankly, somewhat scunnered* with the whole business.

However, I did stumble across a speech my friend Tony (Lord Greaves) made in the House of Lords on 20 January and I liked this section:

“… we live in a media environment which is one of the worst in the democratic world. The media observe policy differences and call it a split; they observe policy discussions and call it a row; they observe compromises and call it a betrayal; they observe trade-offs and call it broken promises; they observe a refusal to agree with consultation responses and call it ideological stubbornness; they observe changes as a result of consultation and call it a U-turn; and if they do not see any of these things they invent them.”

The UK is in dire straits financially. And some of our politicians are attempting to sort things out and have genuinely set aside their points scoring and political posturing in order to do so.

But it is an uphill battle and surely time for the opposition parties, the unions, and – most of all – the media to start pulling their weight too, isn’t it?

* Scunnered: a Scots word meaning to be disgusted, bored or simply fed up

I turned on the news today and won’t be doing so again in the near future. Those following my blog will know that I gave up tuning in soon after the general election. For years I have faithfully followed the Radio 4 output and watched the BBC politics programmes. Not any more, not since friends of mine had to take deep breaths and join forces with the Tories.

Not that they really had any choice, of course. And Cameron – I give him his due – really wants to make the coalition work. But the Thatcher Tories themselves don’t change their spots and the Torygraph has proved that this week.

Just what are they trying to achieve? Yes, yes, making the Lib Dems look bad – what did I say about spots?

A Liberal from birth – determined that those who have should always help those who haven’t – I watched the old-fashioned Tory ethic of looking after the workers disappear under Thatcher. So now they say they have worked for what they have, that the rest of us only need to work to get what they have, and why the hell should they share it?

No, no, no! It doesn’t work like that. Why can’t they see that no-one is worth the many £££££s per minute some earn in jobs they love? The numbers are sometimes obscene but they lord it over us telling us they deserve it. Bollocks! Shouldn’t they earn less than the person having to clean their toilet because that person is performing vital work which they can’t possibly love?

Although I am, of course, somewhat shocked by their naïvety, this week, I am delighted that our ministers have proved to me that they are still the people I thought them to be. I don’t know Dr Vince personally but always expected him to find his post difficult; Professor Steve has lived and breathed fairness for so long that I adore him; and Edward and Mike are also, and always will be, truly bluly (!) liberal.

So, this week, they have proved to us all that despite sharing a bed with those hated Tories not one of them has turned. Bravo, I say!

Thatcher painted the spots on her Tories and they are there to stay. Anything to undermine the Lib Dem ethics is their mantra. Don’t let the voters see how fairness works. Anything to get rid of them.

As I said, just what is the Torygraph trying to achieve? Have they secretly recorded any of the Tories? I doubt it very much.

And, more importantly, have they looked at the consequences? Killing the coalition, undermining and getting rid of the pesky Lib Dems appears to be the agenda. But what will happen next – have they even thought about that? What will happen to the country?

I am an inactive member of the Liberal Democrats, these days, and have resolutely resisted signing up for a direct debit because I prefer to target my donations to specific areas. So I pay the absolute minimum as a subscription and support my son’s local party by choice. I used to be a very active 24/7 member when I ran the Scottish website but I don’t do that any more.

However, I might have dipped my hand into my pocket for the national Xmas Draw which plopped through our letterbox this week if I actually wanted any of the prizes. But I don’t, so they’ve gone into the bin again this year.

Here’s the list of main prizes:

1. Holiday Voucher for £2,000
2. Fine Pakistani Kazak wool rug
3. European City Break for 2
4. Rural Andalusian Town House for 1 week
5. Quartz Movement Mantel Clock
prizes also include silver, crystal glassware, jewellery, watches, wines & spirits and the 50th prize is a half case of champagne.

The only item on the above list that interests me at all is the wine. Everything else would either cost me money to use or sounds like a glorified jumble sale. The rug might fetch something on Ebay, I suppose, but that’d be a hassle.

I’m sorry, Lib Dems, but I already know of three other people who have also binned the tickets. I know how it works, of course – the prizes have been donated and cost the party nothing but what are you thinking?

So, I have a suggestion and the benefits would be substantial. Cash prizes! I might have bought some tickets if there was the chance of a cash prize. They don’t have to be large prizes or even very many – a fiver would be OK at the lower end and you certainly wouldn’t need 50 winners.

What would this mean? Well, a lot less hassle at your end where someone has had to beg for prizes and will also have to organise their dispatch. And a lot less hassle at my end with no more tat to join all those other bits of discarded tat which I’ve accumulated over many years of Lib Dem raffles.

Give it a try and I bet you raise more money that way than you do this year!

When the school psychologist stood in our hall and yelled at my 11-year-old daughter threatening her with a boarding school “for bad children, not like St Leonards [a local private school]” if she didn’t go back to her primary school, I showed the woman the door and told her to get out.

The authorities, to whom I had naïvely turned for help a couple of years before, were beginning to point their fingers in my direction as the reason for my youngest’s school phobia because, as far as they were concerned, she was a perfectly normal and bright girl. So their bullying of her increased – yes, bullying! By social workers, school psychologists, and teachers. All were set on one outcome: that she should go back to school. She was a statistic which didn’t fit and no-one was interested in why she refused to go.

Eventually, I put my foot down and called a halt. I withdrew her from school allowing her the time and space to sort herself out and she is now at university having gone off confidently to college at 15 bypassing a secondary school altogether.

At 11, she was expected to attend school. No question: school or dire consequences for her and for me plus possible separation. That is what the law dictates. Yet if an adult has problems and drops out of work they get a sick line and take time off. Are they bullied and threatened and told they’ve got to go back to work before they are ready? Of course they aren’t!

My daughter was lucky because, having been given a free rein, she knew by the age of 15 what it was she wanted to do. And she is now studying computer arts which is, after all, one of the few growth industries.

Others take longer to decide. Yet they are forced to remain in school long after they have lost interest and they end up wasting their time and the education system’s resources. At college, my daughter had classmates who were there to twiddle their thumbs until they were old enough to leave.

I doubt if anyone would disagree that we need to encourage young people to stay in education for as long as possible. But unless they have a goal in mind, what is the point?

Did I miss it? Oh dear, what a shame!

However, what did penetrate my subconscious to some extent is the matter of Child Benefit being abolished for people earning over a certain amount and I have yet to come off the fence on this one.

Part of me – the single pensioner part expected to live on a net income of £6,895.20 per annum – says what in hell are these rich people bitching about?

But there are women for whom Child Benefit is a lifeline especially if the father of their children considers his earnings to be his and not that of the whole family.

When my first baby was born in 1972, there was no payment. The Family Allowance kicked in for the second child and even then was not paid to the mother directly. So the changes that were eventually made to the system were well overdue.

And now? Figures are being quoted to compare families where both parents work or one doesn’t. But I read that the higher tax rate will even it out and now I’m confused and somewhat bemused.

So although I said I’m on the fence I haven’t actually gone near to the fence at all – let alone mounted it – and I think I’ll sit back now and keep it that way.

As for the tax bonus to be paid for being married, I’m not even going to go there. It is a typical Tory policy and is yet another reason why I am not a Tory – and do not trust them – and will never ever, ever, ever be a Tory!

Well, that was easy! Don’t turn on either radio or TV during a conference and it sails past without encroaching on one’s life.

Mind you, I did tune in for the election result – see my rant about the BBC – and I did notice that Miliband Major has decided to retire to the back benches and who can blame him?

And it has dawned slowly – some things do take a while to penetrate into my brain if I’m busy with other things – that I can’t call Miliband Minor MM because that could mean Major. Doh! But with only one on the scene, I can speak about Miliband now and we’ll all know I mean the younger one, won’t we?

So should I watch the Tory Conference? It is very very tempting not to do so…

In the job as Labour leader for half a minute and Ed Miliband is already talking the Tory talk about hard-workers and we all know what they mean by that, don’t we, both lots? Yes, it’s those who are not lounging around living off the state.

“My aim is to show that our party is on the side of the squeezed middle in our country and everyone who has worked hard and wants to get on,” he says. Talk about electioneering!

Let me talk about lounging because I know a bit about it. I’m a lounger these days because I don’t qualify for the full pension having been told – as a married woman back in the sixties – that it was all covered by my husband’s contributions. What they didn’t tell me was that that all goes out the window when you are divorced and have children.

I also lounged for a while between my husbands when I was bringing up two young children on my own. Hard-working? Try doing that with no support and no money! 24/7 without respite is bloody hard work, I can tell you. And we had a comfortable home – their father was paying for that – but what about those who don’t?

As for those people lounging and not working? Where, tell me, are the jobs? Relocate, they say – they still think all one has to do is get on one’s bike. What bike? They have no bikes and no resources and nowhere to go yet are expected to tear themselves and their families away from their roots and relocate to a mythical better life. It isn’t lack of ambition that keeps them lounging, believe me, and they get blamed for having lack of hope!

As for those wanting “to get on”? I have a student in my household – my younger daughter’s boyfriend – who has returned to education to do just that. But I dread to think what loans he will have piled up by the time he can get into the work he is aiming for. His grant, this year, is £1,000 and he hasn’t even started on a degree course yet. For some reason, if he’d been 25 not 24, he wouldn’t even have received that measly £1,000. Will someone please explain that one to me?

Dare I seek out what Nick says on the subject? Better not! Better to believe that when the Lib Dems say the poor and vulnerable shouldn’t suffer because of the recession that they mean it. Better to think that they’ll actually make sure they don’t. Better, for me, to look the other way and think about something else just in case they let me, and the many thousands of people worse off than me, down.

But someone has to speak out for them, for Christ’s sake, and it appears that MM has decided he isn’t the one to do it. So do we have to call this New New Labour?