Polling on AV: what works, what doesn’t
YouGov conducted some extensive polling on electoral reform last week, the results of which Anthony Wells discusses here.
A few points made by Anthony that stick out:
1. The strongest argument in favour of FPTP was seen as its simplicity – 63% though that the argument that “The present system is better because it is straightforwards: the candidate that wins the most votes locally becomes the MP” was an effective argument.
2. The strongest argument in favour of AV: that AV is good because the winning candidate needs the support of at least half the voters. 62% effective, 20% ineffective.
3. Also very effective was the argument that ‘the present system worked badly by allowing a party to win a majority with little over a third of the voters’. 59% effective, 24% ineffective.
4. A note for PR advocates: the argument that AV was bad because it is not proportional was seen as effective by only 44% of people. But the argument that proportionality was good and AV was a first step towards it was judged as effective by 54%.
5. 53% thought the argument that AV would be fairer was effective, 52% that the curent system was out of date and AV would be a modernising move was.
The poll also had bad news for the ‘No to AV’ team.
6. Only 51% saw the negative argument that AV would lead to a succession of weak coalition governments as effective.
7. The argument that FPTP delivers clear-cut arguments and lets voters kick out governments accepted by only 46% of people. 38% was it as ineffective.
8. Labour voters will be key to winning the vote on AV. Initially they were 44% to 31% in favour of AV, with 20% don’t knows. Asked after exposure to the arguments, this reversed to 32% support and 44% opposed, with 19% don’t knows. Conservatives are mostly unswayed by arguments for AV and against while Libdems are mostly for the change.
A new government, a new age of spin
“What I can tell you is any cabinet minister, if I win the election, who comes to me and says: ‘Here are my plans’ and they involve frontline reductions, they’ll be sent straight back to their department to go away and think again. After 13 years of Labour, there is a lot of wasteful spending, a lot of money that doesn’t reach the frontline.”
David Cameron on the Andrew Marr show, Sunday May 2nd 2010.
Well, they will be sent back to their departments to “think again” alright, to draw up illustrative plans for 40% cuts, as the Coalition is now briefing the press in an excited flurry of axeman machismo.
continue reading… »
‘Pay restraint must include private sector’
Equality campaign One Society has issued an excellent response to reports of high wages earned by quango and union chiefs.
There is no excuse for some labour leaders, in particular, to be earning six-figure sums. But the real rot remains in the private sector, where bonuses and top salaries continue to spiral while the rest of us are promised an age of austerity.
What One Society don’t say, however, is that the TaxPayers’ Alliance is targetting unions for one reason: to undermine opposition to public sector cuts and the increased inequality those cuts will bring.
One Society Media Release: 2 July 2010
Pay restraint starts at home, but must include private sector
- The links between health and pay inequalities
- Top pay in every sector out of balance
- Pay transparency is not enough; need to introduce wage ratios
- Call for trade union leaders to back wage ratios within their own unions and for wider economy
Responding to the release of data on top pay within quangos, Malcolm Clark, campaign director of One Society, said:
“On a day when a report finds the life expectancy gap between rich and poor widening, we are confronted with yet more stories of high salaries for the few. The rewards – both financial and health-wise – of the past decade’s economic growth have disproportionately gone to those already at the top. And we fear this entrenched inequality is set to continue.”
“Those with the broadest shoulders are not bearing the broadest burden of reducing the deficit. Instead, these people had the broadest smiles after the Budget; having avoided a significant Capital Gains Tax rise or other measures beyond what was already in place from previous Budgets. Whereas, the impact of benefit changes, the VAT rise, cuts and rising unemployment will be felt much more keenly lower down the income scale. That balance needs to be redressed.”
“Where the Government and the Tax Payers’ Alliance are correct is in thinking that good practice should start at home – within the public sector, quangos and employee representation bodies (including the unions). Increased pay transparency is not going to make much difference on its own though.”
“What will is introducing wage ratios, where top pay is capped at a maximum multiple of the salary of the lowest paid employees. For the unions, wage ratios have the added advantage of focusing attention on the lowest as well as the highest earnings within an organisation: giving momentum to bring low wages up whilst stemming runaway pay at the top.”
“The Greater London Assembly has set the standard for others to follow: committing not just to a 1:20 wage ratio; but to lowering that over-time to 1:10 (as well as paying the London Living Wage as a minimum salary). That lower figure is already within easy reach for trade unions, and could be used as a starting point for going further, including within the workplaces of their members. We will shortly be calling on the candidates for General Secretary of Unite union to back such a move.”
“However, the Tax Payers’ Alliance and others should worry more about the salaries of private sector contractors and consultants whose inflated pay drains valuable money out of the public sector. Precisely as the government’s Fair Pay Review acknowledges in its terms of reference: ‘distortions and market failures in private sector pay create pressure for unfair pay multiples in the public sector’. Only once we have transparent and fair pay – including wage ratios – in the private sector will real change (and savings) in the public sector be possible.”
Why else has the TPA suddenly extended its remit to look beyond public spending? And now that unions are fair game, surely it’s time for the TPA to come clean on its own opaque finances?
The wrong approach to deal with the coalition
I’m not a big fan of Observer editorials usually, but there’s an important point it makes today:
Labour campaigned against Conservative economic policy on the grounds that Mr Cameron planned to form an administration run by the “same old Tories”. Lib Dem support for maximum austerity makes that line hard to sustain. But instead of promoting an alternative agenda, acting leader Harriet Harman has devoted disproportionate energy to attacking Nick Clegg’s MPs for a perceived betrayal of their principles.
That approach does more to gratify Labour’s sense of itself as guardian of the “progressive” moral high ground than it does to drive a wedge between the coalition parties, which is presumably the aim. While many Lib Dems might be uneasy about alliance with the Tories, they are unlikely to be shamed into sabotaging their own government by opposition sanctimony.
A few points…
continue reading… »
Labour has turned into a headless attack-dog
Were it just an isolated incident, I suppose we could just dismiss Jack Straw’s attack on prison reform as that of a grumpy ex-minister grasping for success stories from his time in government.
We could even forgive him one last grumble as he adjusts to opposition and find his ‘prison works’ mantra consigned to the dustbin of social policy.
But then when you look around at how other ex-ministers have attacked coalition policies you’ll see a rather unsightly pattern emerge.
continue reading… »
There are no arguments to pull down Democracy Village
I’m getting tired of the stupid arguments pretend-Libertarians and authoritarian lefties use to justify evicting Democracy Village protesters in Parliament Square.
A little anecdote first. A few weeks ago I went by Parliament Square at night. This time I stopped and parked my motorbike, came back into the Village and uprooted this sign on the side in support of 9/11 Truthers. I nearly managed to carry the banner off the field and chuck it in the bin but I ran into the Villagers.
And so a long debate ensued about whether it was right to have the sign there, whether they were achieving anything and what exactly they were protesting against. In the end I gave them back their silly 9/11 banner.
continue reading… »
Why Brazil has more sense than the Netherlands
contribution by Kate Blagojevic
The World Cup has offered us welcome distraction from the constant scare mongering.
They all tell us “We know what is best for you, shut your eyes, open your mouth, take the medicine it will cure all our ills. Watch the football, drink your beer, stay on the sofa, there’s a good chap.”
But the World Development Movement and others don’t want you to stay on your sofa. We have campaigned for decades to stop institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank from forcing developing countries to introduce public service cuts, privatisation and reductions in government spending.
Sound familiar?
continue reading… »
‘This system got us jobs for life & duckhouses’
Vote for a Change today issued a press release that offers the best narrative to push on Electoral Reform:
Willie Sullivan, head of the Vote for a Change, said:
Its time to ditch our outdated and broken electoral system. The system that brought us duckhouses, safe seats and jobs for life.
The system that gives 2 out 3 MPs their jobs on less than half of the vote.
The public’s anger has forced this chance for change. And it’s their voice which will be heard when they vote yes in the referendum next May.
The Yes Campaign is coming together. We know the status quo has powerful friends in the media and big business, but the public are prepared to ignore the Doom-Mongers and deliver historic change.
No one can deny that people feel politicians are unaccountable and unrepresentative – this referendum is their chance to change that.
Vote for a Change say they will now focus on fundraising for the battle ahead, and working with organisations such as Unlock Democracy, the Electoral Reform Society and Take Back Parliament to form the Yes Campaign.
Short film on Democracy village in Parliament sq.
A short documentary made by filmmaker Angie Byrne on the ‘democracy village’ in Parliament Square, Westminster.
Angie has also made other short films on various bits of activism.
The Democracy Village is due to be evicted today.
A demo is planned in their support at 4pm at the camp-site.
The campaign for vote reform now needs a simple message
contribution by Guy Aitchison
So, it’s May 5th for the referendum on AV. This is the date many of us were hoping for.
It’s early on in the life of the coalition when there’s still momentum behind political reform and before the pain of spending cuts kicks in and it’s during the local elections and Scottish and Welsh elections so turnout will be higher.
The key now will be what concrete commitments each of the Labour candidates can give to the “Yes” campaign – some may be tempted to pay lip service to supporting it whilst doing nothing active in the hope it will fail and bring down the coalition. The purple people will be pushing them to set their cards on the table so we know where they stand.
continue reading… »
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
» Do older people really need more NHS healthcare?
» There are alternatives to the reckless ‘Plan A’
» On Beecroft: it is already quite easy to sack people
» Why Cameron’s claim of 600,000 jobs created is plainly wrong
» By using age to allocate NHS funding, Lansley rewards Tory voters
» The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem
» Adrian Beecroft highlights mindset of Tory right
» The US is now a model for the Eurozone to save itself
» The IMF plan to revive the economy doesn’t go far enough
» The Boris brand is weaker than his friends think
» Nine things you can do to halt Lansley’s destruction of our NHS
|
28 Comments 72 Comments 21 Comments 49 Comments 10 Comments 24 Comments 22 Comments 69 Comments 44 Comments 25 Comments |
|
LATEST COMMENTS » john b posted on Red Tory Blond: gay marriage "homophobic" » john b posted on Do older people really need more NHS healthcare? » john b posted on On Beecroft: it is already quite easy to sack people » john b posted on Do older people really need more NHS healthcare? » So Much For Subtlety posted on Criticism of Obama for its own sake: a reply to Mehdi Hasan » Jack C posted on Red Tory Blond: gay marriage "homophobic" » bluepillnation posted on The Boris brand is weaker than his friends think » P Ve M posted on Red Tory Blond: gay marriage "homophobic" » Ben2 posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » So Much For Subtlety posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » So Much For Subtlety posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » BenSix posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » So Much For Subtlety posted on How Newsnight demonised a single mother » Ben2 posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » So Much For Subtlety posted on The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an "isolated" problem |
