Alternative Vote Referendum - What it means for British Politics

The Alternative Vote (AV) referendum, scheduled to take place on May 5^th, has the potential to dramatically change the UK political landscape in coming years.

Drawn up as part of the Coalition Agreement, the referendum will ask voters a yes/no question on whether or not they are in favour of changing the system:

At present, the UK uses the “first past the post” system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the “alternative vote” system be used instead?

The terms of the Coalition Agreement specify that the usual rules of cabinet collective responsibility are not applied to the referendum.  As such the parliamentary Conservative (‘no’ camp) and Liberal Democrat (‘yes camp’) parties are campaigning on different sides (with some exceptions).  The Labour Party leadership is campaigning in support of AV, although some 200 Labour MPs and Peers are campaigning for a ‘no’ vote. So too are Labour’s natural allies in the GMB and ASLEF trade unions.

The result of the referendum (determined by a simple majority opposed or in favour of the motion) will be legally binding on the government.  A win for the ‘yes’ campaign will mean that AV is certain to be adopted at the next general election.

AV Explained

The UK Electoral Commission has produced concise and impartial explanation of the First Past the Post and Alternative Vote electoral systems:

AV: The Debate

Opposed to AV

1. AV will remove the principle of one person, one vote counted once.
2. AV is a discredited system used only by Australia, Papua New Guinea and Fiji (Fiji are planning to stop using AV and opinion polls in Australia show a majority of voters would prefer First Past the Post). 50 nations use First Past the Post for elections.
3. AV will lead to more hung parliaments and as a result programmes for Government being drawn up behind closed doors rather than manifestos which are voted on by the public.
4. Under AV the person finishing third after everybody’s first preference is counted could end up becoming the MP.
5. During the 20^th century, First Past The Post helped keep the UK stable while other nations were more politically volatile.
6. Either the drama of election night will be lost as a manual count will take a long time or the manual count will be replaced by expensive machinery to tally the votes.

In favour of AV

1. Making your MP seek 50% of the vote would make them work harder.
2. “Safe seats” would be less likely to occur removing the “job for life mentality” perceived in some MPs.
3. You will have a bigger say on who your MP is. If your first choice is not elected you still can have input into who gets elected.
4. AV is often used for selecting party leaders and in trade union ballots, so why not for Parliament?
5. At the last General Election, more than two thirds of MPs were elected without an overall majority of the votes in their constituency.
6. The way we elect MPs has continually evolved over the last 200 years; there’s no reason why it needs to remain exactly the same.

What is the expected turnout?

The ‘yes’ and ‘no’ camps are currently locked in a heated battle to secure majority support from the electorate.  Voter turnout is likely to be a key factor in determining the result.  Proponents of AV had worked to secure a referendum on the same day as elections to the Scottish parliament, Welsh assembly and many local English elections on the assumption that a higher turnout in the referendum would work in their favour in some of these areas.  Conversely, some MPs were critical of the decision to hold the vote on May 5^th, arguing that it would artificially inflate turnout on an issue they did not perceive the electorate to consider important.   Even so, since there is no minimum participation threshold required for a decisive result, the issue of turnout is likely to stir controversy, whatever the outcome of the vote.

 

What do the polls tell us?

At the time of writing, political polling on the issue does not yet provide clear insight as to the likely result on May 5^th.  This is mainly due to there being a large proportion of voters (approximately one quarter) that are undecided on the matter.  Voter turnout will also be crucial in determining the result.  With English local elections rarely exceeding 35% turnout, the AV referendum is unlikely to fare much better in England, although it may be higher in Wales and Scotland where elections for the devolved parliaments are being held simultaneously.  Both of these factors mean that polling on the subject is inconclusive at the present time.

However, what AV polling can and does show are trends.  In recent weeks, a series of polls from Populus and YouGov point to the ‘yes’ campaign having lost the advantage it enjoyed in the latter half of 2010.  These polls suggest that, especially when explanations of the systems are read to respondents, there are now more people opposing the motion than are in favour

.   In its research, Populus asked half of respondents the bare referendum question, while the other half was prompted with descriptions of each electoral system before being asked to state their preference.  That opposition to the motion becomes more entrenched once AV is defined may prove a bad omen for those in the ‘yes’ camp, as it suggests that the more citizens are told about AV, the more they tend to oppose it. 

In the run up to May 5^th, the way in which the debate is framed in the media will therefore be critical, as a large tranche of undecided voters will be choosing if and how to vote.

Media Coverage

The AV referendum has attracted significant media coverage in recent weeks, with much attention focused on the activities of campaigners, and in particular, prominent MPs in each camp.  With the Conservatives campaigning for a ‘no’ vote, David Cameron and much of the Tory front bench have been dispatched to oppose the motion, with frequent interviews frequently being given in newspapers and on the radio.  Similar coverage has also been given to the Liberal Democrat proponents; the most prominent being Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister.

In addition to the coverage of the major political parties, a large number of celebrities have also become involved in each respective campaign.  In favour of AV, notable personalities in favour include Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter, Greg Dyke and Stephen Fry.  James Cracknell, Esther Rantzen, Darren Gough and Professor Robert Winston (Lord Winston) have campaigned against AV.

In early April, the ‘yes’ campaign received criticism for its decision to produce two versions of a leaflet it was distributing.  In one version, used in London, the leaflet included the face of black poet Benjamin Zephaniah, who supports AV.  However, in leaflets distributed to other parts of the country, Zephaniah had been airbrushed out and replaced with actor Tony Robinson.

Media coverage of respective campaign can be expected to intensify throughout April.  However, it is likely that coverage will not be as readily absorbed by the public in the week before the vote, with many Britons taking holiday over the Bank Holiday weekend, or celebrating the Royal Wedding.

What would AV mean for the UK?

The likely impact of AV on the UK political landscape is disputed and will not become entirely clear until such a time as it is implemented.  It has been suggested that AV will lead to more ‘hung’ parliaments, although this assertion is not always borne out in other countries (such as Australia) that already use the system.  Neither is it clear whether AV would lead to more ‘proportional’ election results; again, with differing opinions put forward by each camp.  In short, there is no clear answer as to how AV will affect the composition of the House of Commons.  For this this reason, the debate has ostensibly been centred around which system more fair or practical.

The actual impact of AV on electoral outcomes will in any case depend on local conditions within constituencies.  In the South West England for example, where the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives compete for seats, it might be expected that second preference votes among Lib Dem voters would be allocated to the Labour Party.  Similarly, many first preference Labour voters might be expected select the Liberal Democrat candidate as their second preference.  As such, a front-running Conservative that failed to win majority first preference support could easily be defeated through second and third preference votes.  In other areas of the UK, with different combinations of party support, one might expect different outcomes.  However, on a national level, there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that the Conservative Party would lose seats overall, at the expense of the Liberal Democrats.

To complicate matters further, the same bill that set the AV referendum in motion, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act (not yet law), has an additional constitutional aim.  In addition to holding a referendum on AV, the bill proposes to reduce the current number of seats in the Commons by redrawing the boundaries of some constituencies; so that each is more equal by population size.  The boundary changes, if implemented as proposed, are likely to help the Conservatives by reducing the overrepresentation of seats in the north of England and Wales.  The bill is currently being passed through the legislature, but if it became law, would certainly create yet more speculation about changes in the UK political landscape.

In the short term, perhaps what is most interesting is potential for the outcome of the referendum to split the Coalition government.  There are MPs in both of the coalition parties deeply uneasy about their alliance.  At the time the Coalition Agreement was signed, many Conservative MPs were furious at having ceded the electoral reform issue to the Liberal Democrats.  For some Lib Dem MPs, the prospect of electoral reform is a primary motivation for remaining in government with the Conservatives. Whatever the outcome on May 5^th, there will be MPs in either or both parties who may start hinting at an end to the Coalition.

MPC attends “Budget 2011: A plan for city growth?” event

MPC recently attended an event hosted by the Centre for Cities, an independent, non-partisan research and policy institute committed to improving the economic performance of UK cities.

Entitled “Budget 2011: A plan for city growth?”, a panel chaired by James Crabtree of the Financial Times discussed the coalition government’s Budget, in terms of its impact on Britain’s cities.  Responding, panellists Rt Hon Danny Alexander MP (Chief Secretary to the Treasury), Mike More (Chief Executive, Westminster City Council) and Alexandra Jones (Chief Executive, Centre for Cities) offered their views on how the Budget will affect Britain’s cities.

There was certainly a lot in Budget this year for those of us in the planning sector to ponder.  MPC provides its analysis on some of the key points raised:

·         Announced in the Budget are 21 new urban Enterprise Zones, designed to stimulate growth in urban areas that lag behind in terms of growth.  Ten Local Enterprise Partnerships (in addition to one in London chosen by the Mayor) will be allowed to decide on a geographic area within their partnerships to locate an Enterprise Zone (ten further zones will be set up following a competition among other LEPs).   Firms setting up business within the Zone will be able to take advantage of substantial discounts in business rates, while manufacturing businesses will have access to new super-fast broadband services.  Crucially, the new Zones are to benefit from a simplified planning regime where applicants are not subject to the same bureaucratic hurdles as would normally apply.

o    MPC Response:  Discussion at the event raised an interesting point about how the simplified planning regime proposed for Enterprise Zones sits with the Coalition’s broader localism agenda.  On the one hand, businesses are being given much greater freedom to determine the shape of development (local authorities will have less room to scrutinise plans), yet under localism it is communities that are meant to be given more say on development (think Neighbourhood Plans).  In short, we may expect a very different flavour of localism within Enterprise Zones.

·         Beyond Enterprise Zones, George Osborne also announced that there would be a new “presumption in favour” of planning applications for so-called “sustainable development”. 

o    MPC Response: If, as the Chancellor says, the default outcome for such applications will be affirmative, then where does localism fit in?  Under localism, residents are meant to determine how development is progressed in their area (although not whether it occurs at all).  A built-in presumption in favour of ‘sustainable’ planning applications may simply override the idea of Neighbourhood Planning as touted by the DCLG.  This indicates how flexible the Treasury is when it comes to localism.  Developers will, of course, wonder what is meant by sustainable.

·         A theme that ran throughout the 2011 Budget was an effort to “re-balance” the economy, in which geography is identified as an important factor.  Re-balancing economic growth across the UK may seem like an obvious goal, but is it realistic? Responding to this provision in the Budget, Alexandra Jones raised some interesting points.  While growth in London and the South East may recently have far outstripped that in other parts of the country, it does not have to be this way moving forward, she argued.  It is reported, informally, that many business organisations choose to locate in London not only for its strategic location, but also because of a greater ‘certainty’ of outcome where planning and development are factors in their business models.  Local authorities are more likely to approve planning applications in densely populated London than many other parts of the country.  Objections by residents to applications are often less prolific within the capital.  By ensuring greater certainty in the planning process across other high-potential cities, some firms may be prepared to locate (and develop) in these regions instead, helping to redress this ‘imbalance’ in the process.

o    MPC Response:  It is indeed greater certainty that developers and the wider business community would like to see in the planning process.  MPC experience in recent months in fact points to less certainty, as some local authorities pause the advancement of Local Development Frameworks in the face of the announced dissolution of Regional Spatial Strategies.  Without the certainty of RSS, some councils are now questioning the basis on which their Core Strategies are founded, and with it, those Strategic Development Locations (SDLs) that had previously been a cause for optimism among would-be developers.  It remains to be seen when this sense of ‘certainty’ will return, and with it, a better chance of re-balancing growth in the way the Coalition would like to see.

·         From a planning perspective, one of more eye-catching announcements in the Budget was the decision to pilot Land Auctions.  Under the proposals, local government will be able to benefit from a purchase option on private land.  Local authorities would receive a future right-to-buy assurance at an asking price set by the owner.  The authority would then able to grant outline planning permission for the land, and subsequently auction it to a developer.  In so doing, it is highly likely to profit from an increase in land value derived from the allocation of planning permission.  Furthermore, this encourages development within the locale that is compatible with its Core Strategy.

o    MPC Response:  The government’s proposals are an interesting approach to promoting economic growth and provide greater certainty for developers.  They also appear to be compatible with localism, since authorities will have more power to shape development within the framework of Neighbourhood Plans.  The key will be if landowners are prepared to sell assets to local authorities at what may prove to be a below-market value.  Our analysis, however, is that there will be a nationally varied uptake, with some areas embracing the auctions, and others shunning them.  The auction approach is more likely to be rejected in areas where anti-development sentiment is high on the local agenda and Members prefer to play it safe.

o    The changes, as proposed, will certainly mean a (potentially) more proactive role for local government in promoting and enabling development.   Instead of councils simply reacting to planning applications received, they may now find themselves acting as speculators.  This will put planning centre stage in some local authorities, where Members will be held more accountable for the land they themselves select for development.