Reason Enough

AV is a recipe for coalitions – reason enough to vote ‘No’ — an opinionated article on proposed reforms to the UK voting system, from Simon Heffer in the Telegraph. Some extracts from the article:

For the next 12 weeks, those interested in this attempt to experiment with our constitution can be bombarded with the odd fact, and piles of prejudice and assertion, as they prepare to decide.

For “experiment with”, read “change”.

The referendum, on May 5, is one of the carrots held out to the Liberal Democrats for their participation in the Coalition. As with much else that that party has chucked into the political debate in our country, it is a thoroughly reckless proposal.

For “reckless”, read “I don’t like it”.

The most likely [consequences] are that it will be easier for parties that are not Labour or the Conservatives to win seats at Westminster. There would not just be Lib Dems, but also Scottish and Welsh separatists, Greens, possibly even one from Nick Griffin and his chums.

Labour and the Conservatives being the only parties who deserve seats at Westminster, of course. (See also: appeal to fear.)

It would become far less likely that a single party would be able to form a government. Therefore we would have more highly successful, productive and happiness-inducing coalitions like the one with which we are currently saddled.

That the current coalition is bad doesn’t in any way prove that other coalitions would be bad. Had the current government been a straight Conservative majority, it would still have taken the same (if not more) controversial decisions regarding the economy.

AV would then be the thin end of the wedge: soon, full-scale multi-member constituency PR would be introduced.

Read: AV is bad because PR is bad. But in what sense is a voting system bad when it produces parliaments in which political parties are balanced according to their popularity in the country as a whole?

The Yes campaign has brought out leading constitutional experts such as Colin Firth and Helena Bonham Carter, the Bagehot and Dicey of our times, to argue for the change. Such trivialisation should fill us with gloom.

When did Colin Firth last claim to be a “constitutional expert”, and it what sense does involving public figures in political reform “trivialise” the process? But maybe we should let the politicians with a vested interest in our voting system decide what should happen to our voting system, instead of giving the public a say. That could work.

The No campaign seems on stronger ground, not least by arguing that the cost of reform could amount to £250 million, as special electronic machines are required for polling stations.

A thing is bad if it costs a lot of money.

There is a more practical point still. Is this reform really such a pressing problem, in the present circumstances, that it has required all the public money, and parliamentary time, necessary to follow it through?

Maybe we should put it to a vote, and let the people decide.