My conditions for cooperation. Yes drug policy IS that important.

These are the conditions I think we should demand be met by a potential coalition partner.

On electoral systems: Each party must guarantee at least a referendum on AV. A 3-option referendum including STV should be acceptable to Labour as I would hope they would be confident of arguing the case for the middle-ground option.
This referendum would of course have to be run using the AV/STV method.

Positions in a coalition cabinet: The one position of greatest importance is Home Secretary. It is the department in which policy has differed greatest between the other two parties and ourselves. It is the department in which Liberal Democrat power could undoubtedly improve our society whilst saving money on things like sentencing policy and effective crime prevention measures.

We should also have as a condition an impact assessment/enquiry into current drug policy. The potential savings to be made from moving to a sensible, evidence based control and regulation approach are immense. Controlling and regulating currently illegal drugs has the potential to save over £10Bn in criminal justice costs while at the same time reducing burglary rates by 80%, street prostitution by over 90% and drastically reducing the prison population. It is the area of policy where huge savings can be made while creating huge benefits to society.

If we are not to go the way of Greece, we need to find the policy options which save money while making people's lives better. Control and regulation of drugs is the most obvious of these.

I would also like to see movement towards our redistributive tax plans.

Ewan Hoyle.

Glasgow South

Founder of Liberal Democrats for Drug Policy Reform
Blogger at: http://ewansliberalmusings.blogspot.com/

Lib Dems need to embrace the Alternative Vote while they can.

There has been much pillorying of Gordon Brown's Alternative Vote proposals on the Lib Dem blogosphere of late. On some counts the detractors are pretty much spot on. Gordon Brown is probably doing this as a desperate attempt to win over some tactical voting Lib Dems at the next election. Yes, STV would be more proportional and yes, AV could create "Anyone but X" backlashes against an incumbent government that could bring about large swings of power. The argument that AV could bring about less proportional representation than First Past the Post isn't really valid though. As soon as voters are asked to rank candidates in order of preference you can't judge proportionality by the relationship between a parties 1st preference vote share and their seat share. One of AV's strengths is that is asks more than the FPTP question: "which of the candidates that have a realistic chance of winning would you rather represented you in parliament?" It asks "How would you honestly rank the candidates in order of preference if you knew that supporting your favourite candidate over your tolerated candidate will not benefit a candidate you emphatically do not wish to represent you?" An AV result might not more proportionally represent people's first preferences, but it will certainly more accurately represent their stated preferences.

Also, we need to ask how proportional the STV - the liberal's favoured system - would be and would we really want greater proportionality. STV is not a system of proportional representation. Electoral systems do become more proportional the greater the number of representatives there are representing each seat, but where would it be proper to stop? One representative per seat is on the same continuum as 10 representatives per seat. If we don't go far enough, people will complain about their views not being represented. If we go too far we risk opening parliament up to fascists, communists, anarchists, religious fundamentalists and - if we get it properly wrong - monster raving loonys and Melanie Phillips. Do we want a dozen or so BNP MPs in parliament? Is there a point in proportionally representative democracy where people's opinions become better represented than their best interests?

How would STV work for geographically remote constituencies? Would the Western Isles remain represented by one MP while areas of London get 10? How fair would it be for the people of the Shetlands to be not only competing for their MPs' time with people on the Orkney Islands, but people on the Mainland 200 miles away?

Also, what makes you so sure the people would vote for STV? Are you certain that the voters aren't rather fond of the constituency link? The last referendum on replacing FPTP with STV was in May last year in British Colombia and was voted down by 61.3% to 38.7%. If AV were to become a reality I suspect pushing STV would be even harder and AV would not be a stepping stone to STV, but an end in itself. I think all Liberal Democrats should be happy with that.

In those countries that actually have STV already there's certainly not a consensus that it is the best political system around. Last week Mick Fealty of the Slugger O'Toole blog was a guest on the House of Comments podcast discussing electoral reform with Mark Thompson (Mark Reckons): http://houseofcomments.com/ (Feb 3 about 30 minutes in). His contribution was really rather critical of STV in Ireland, stating that it "favours the interests of the parish over the state" and that STV had created a parliament of social workers rather than a parliament of legislators. Having multiple candidates from each party running for election from each constituency often means representatives have to be slavishly attentive to their constituents and especially their local party members if they wish to gain the necessary support to be re-elected. Do we want our MPs to be spending time fussing over an unsteady constituency wall or a badly written policing bill? Are safe seats actually a good thing for democracy? How much time do MPs in marginal seats spend seeking out and grinning at fairly meaningless photo opportunities?

So STV is far from perfect, but what of AV, the electoral system that is actually on offer? Firstly, I should explain that the polls you see in the media on voting intention aren't opinion polls. They are likely behaviour polls. Every election carried out under FPTP* does not encourage the public to vote honestly for the candidate they favour. AV would grant us the right to vote for the party whose policies we genuinely support without fear of "letting the wrong one in". I for one will support honest representation whenever it is offered to me and I ask all Lib Dem MPs to do the same.

If you see safe seats as bad for democracy then you can build mechanisms into the system to combat this. By way of example, compelling two-term incumbents with substantial majorities to to go up against an alternative candidate from within their party should keep them honest whilst not harming the chances of that party being represented.

Negative campaigning could damage a party's chances of gaining second preference votes from supporters of the candidate they have attacked. Might AV bring about positive, policy-focussed campaigning?

Perhaps the most striking and important example of how AV could have changed history can be found in the American presidential elections (From Wikipedia): "In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Ralph Nader received 97,421 votes, which led to claims that he was responsible for Gore's defeat. Nader, both in his book Crashing the Party and on his website, states: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all." " Had Nader's supporters been able to express a second preference, it seems likely that George W. Bush would not have been President of the United States of America.

First Past the Post prevents any minor party becoming a major party as in their infancy a vote in their favour will always be regarded as a wasted vote (Most dramatically demonstrated in the US). This is fundamentally undemocratic. It discourages those whose views are similar to an existing candidate's from standing as they might reduce that candidate's chances of victory. That is also fundamentally undemocratic. Should a single issue candidate wish to stand under AV they would be able to point to voters honestly voting for them as a true demonstration that the issue is important to the electorate. Under FPTP, even if people share their views, they will not be able to support them without "wasting" their vote and losing their say in the battle for first place. This is also fundamentally undemocratic.

I hope the amendment tabled by the Lib Dems to ensure that the next government is compelled to return to parliament should they wish the referendum to be shelved is passed. This bill may be the desperate act of a Prime Minister trying to cling to power, but that is no reason to vote against the greatest opportunity Britain has ever had for a better democracy.

Honest representation is essential for this country to move towards genuinely progressive politics and I will tactically vote Labour at the next election if this bill passes and I believe it will help eliminate the tactical vote from all the elections that follow. I will do the very thing I despise to hasten its demise.

We should not support this bill because it will benefit the Lib Dems, but I shall leave you with John Cleese and the thought that AV might free the voters who believe in Liberal Democrat policies to actually vote for Liberal Democrat candidates: http://bit.ly/c1o7M2


*A misnomer as their is no vote share "post" in each constituency which you need to pass. Theoretically the BNP could win a 5-way marginal with 21% of the vote. AV would be more fittingly called First Past the Post as the first person gaining more than 50% of the vote is elected.

Considering people's second preferences could win the Lib Dems 35 extra seats!!!!

It looks like the Lib Dems are gearing up for perhaps the stupidest piece of political foot-shootery ever carried out by human beings. The AV referendum bill is going to be voted on next week and it seems likely that many Labour backbenchers will refuse to back it. It it does not pass because of lack of Lib Dem support then it will have been the single most selfless (and astonishingly stupid) political decision ever made. I have written previously on the benefits of the AV system:

http://ewansliberalmusings.blogspot.com/2010/01/labour-gave-lib-dems-two-open-goals.html

but have now considered the polling results contained within this document: http://populuslimited.com/uploads/download_pdf-130909-The-Times-The-Times-Poll---September.pdf (pages 8&9) that indicate a massive preference for the Lib Dems as a second preference from supporters of both Labour and the Tories. I have gone through all the Liberal Democrat target seats in which we came in second, studied 2005 results (and notional results) and added 86% of Tory votes when they came in 3rd and 66% of Labour votes when they came in 3rd to the Lib Dem vote tally. Presuming minor party votes are shared equally between the Lib Dems and their competitor, and excluding the consideration that Lib Dem candidates would benefit from reduced tactical voting and increased engagement in our policies, AV would have given us about 35 extra seats, 98 in total.

This is just an estimate based on a poll and some crude (but appropriate) analysis, but it demonstrates quite clearly to me that any Lib Dem MP thinking of voting against this bill needs a good slap. Seriously people, sort yourselves out.

Labour gave the Lib Dems two open goals yesterday. Did you miss them?

There were two news stories yesterday that were absolutely vital to the future of our country. Both granted the Lib Dems the opportunity to make considerable political capital at Labour's expense. And it appears both opportunities have yet to be seized. I shall come to Gordon Brown's dogmatic, blinkered position on drug policy later. I do go on about drug policy a bit so felt I should first raise the Labour party's inner turmoil on the AV referendum (as highlighted by Michael Crick http://tinyurl.com/ye3a8oq).

The Liberal Democrats have remained stubbornly silent on this issue for many months now despite the fact that we are the most passionate supporters of electoral reform. Below is a letter I wrote to Chris Huhne on the subject in September. The phrase "We want democracy now! Labour won't give it to you, the Tories never will!" can still be employed in pressuring Labour to go through with their plans.


"28th September 2009

Dear Mr. Huhne.

I spoke to you briefly at the Vote for Change electoral reform rally last Sunday lunchtime on the subject of a concurrent referendum (for immediate application) on the alternative vote electoral system. I would now like to lay out in greater detail why I believe the Liberal Democrats should pursue this possibility.

“We want democracy now. Labour won't give it to you. The Conservatives never will.”

It's a fine soundbite, and one I believe we should employ. STV is not on the table. AV is. It is a vast improvement on our current system and we should give it our whole-hearted support. Even if there is only a very minimal chance of an immediately applied concurrent referendum being technically or legally achievable, we should definitely push for it for the political reasons I shall now lay out.

An end to tactical voting.

How could constituents not support a system that allows them to vote for who they want to win rather than compromise and support the more acceptable of the two front-runners? Gone will be the days when people only vote for us when they think we can win. For this reason our vote share should rise significantly.

Increased engagement in politics.

This proposal should increase engagement in politics, as people seek to learn more about the different parties that would make up their list order, rather than just vote for the party they have always backed. I believe anything that increases the chances of people finding out what the liberal democrats stand for should also increase our vote share.

Putting Labour on the back foot

Labour have been umming and ahing on this issue for months now. Some polls suggest more people would vote for them if they put forward an electoral reform referendum. If we get in there first saying “put up or shut up”, then we can be seen as the party taking the initiative on the issue. If they chicken out, fearing massive losses under an AV system applied to this coming election, we can gain considerable political capital from this. If they plump for an AV referendum at the next election, but which can only be applied to subsequent elections, we can say that we demanded democracy now and the Labour party abandoned their principles for political gain.
If we do manage to achieve the concurrent, immediately applied referendum, we can take all the credit for the idea, achieve a massive increase in seats, hopefully prevent a tory majority, be seen to be crediting the electorate with the intelligence to cope with a rapid change in electoral system, and can use AV as a stepping stone to STV if we so wish. I personally think we are more likely to achieve power on our own under AV than under STV, but am happy to listen to other views on the matter.

In my opinion there would be very little damage to our chances of taking labour target seats. While Labour might get a small boost from promoting a referendum, I believe this effect would be massively swamped by the support we would gain for the reasons I have presented above. There would also be little need to campaign “alongside” labour for the AV system. A simple consideration of the fact that people only marking one preference risk being disenfranchised if AV is favoured, should persuade them to support AV and vote using the system. Given the choice of voting for who they genuinely would like to win and voting tactically for a less preferable candidate, they would be massively foolish not to support reform.

I beg you to take this proposal seriously. I am terrified of what another tory government will do to our country and am deeply concerned about the possibility of Scottish independence becoming a reality if the tories win power.

I truly believe this is one of the rare times in politics when you are presented with a win-win-win situation. I read a poll today that had the Liberal Democrats and Labour neck and neck on 23%. Upon inputting the poll numbers into UK Polling Report's Swing Calculator I found this result projected to produce 200 Labour seats and only 70 Liberal Democrat seats at the next election. We must act to prevent such laughably undemocratic projections becoming reality. Despite our political position being far from clearly central between the other two parties anymore, it is still fairly clear that supporters of Labour and the Conservatives will back the Liberal Democrats against the other main party at least 6 times more often than they would back Labour or the Tories against the Lib Dems http://populuslimited.com/uploads/download_pdf-130909-The-Times-The-Times-Poll---September.pdf (see pages 8&9). The Liberal Democrats would gather honest, non-tactical votes; votes from people newly aware of our policies; and the vast majority of second preferences from the other main parties under AV. The party should be pulling out all the stops to make it happen as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Ewan Hoyle.

For those of you about to argue "But AV can be less proportional". AV is only less proportional because that is the way the voters wish it. It reflects the nuances of public opinion rather than forcing people to take sides. If 45% of people in a constituency want a Tory MP, they would not get one under AV if 51% of the voters wanted someone else and voted accordingly. That is good democracy. We'd also get strong governments and retain the constituency link. Some people have strong views on whether these are good things. I take the view that AV is on offer, and it's a hell of a lot better than FPTP.


A new blog post for the Gordon Brown drugs position I think.