“Politics is never just about politics.”
So said Nick Spencer in his introduction to yesterday’s Great AV Debate at King’s College London.
The event, run by Theos in partnership with Charities Parliament and Kings’ College Faith and Public Policy Forum, was a chance for students, charity representatives and the wider public to engage with some of the issues underlying the often fraught question of voting reform.
“Beneath the surface of questions like ‘How would AV change the colour of the electoral landscape?’", Nick Spencer explained, “there lie some more profound questions about the nature of representation, the nature of democracy itself.
“The decision before us is an important one, and it will rest on our vision of democracy, on what we understand ‘fairness’ to mean.”
Dr Luke Bretherton, Senior Lecturer in theology and politics at King’s and Convener of the Faith and Public Policy Forum, chaired the debate, which involved (for the ‘Yes’ campaign) Baroness Oona King of Bow and Peter Facey from Unlock Democracy, and (for the ‘No’ campaign) Sam Gyimah MP and Gavin Shuker MP.
Oona King began by accepting the jibe often thrown at the ‘Yes’ camp that AV is not what they really want, but argued that the best should not be the enemy of the good. “Is AV the best system we could have? Absolutely not. Is it better than the one we’ve got? Yes.”
Responding to her exhortation to ‘vote for progress’, Sam Gyimah raised the point that not all change is necessarily for the better. “The question,” he said, “is what sort of progress you want, what direction you want to go in.” He also noted that this was not a change that the British public is clamouring for, and that if they are disengaged and disenchanted by politics, a change in the system by which we elect our representatives will not restore the trust or sense of connection with those representatives.
Peter Facey’s argument centred on the fact that politics itself had changed. We no longer have a de facto two-party system, as we did 50 years ago. With three main parties and a plethora of smaller ones steadily gaining support, First Past the Post (FPTP) no longer produces the clear political mandates it once did. “The way we’re voting today,” he said, “we’re going to get more coalitions [whether under AV or FPTP].” He also argued that AV is a “fairer” system in which the person voted in has a majority of support from over 50% of his or her constituents.
Gavin Shuker was the last to speak and expressed his concerns about the high hopes AV supporters have for the system. Expectations that AV would “turn MPs into saints” who would all work harder and submit honest expenses claims are unrealistic, he suggested, and could lead to an even greater feeling of distrust and betrayal if the system is adopted with those expectations loaded on it. He also tackled the question of legitimacy, citing the election of Ed Miliband to the Labour leadership. While reiterating his support for the Labour leader and affirming his leadership, he asked “Who can say that Ed’s legitimacy was strengthened by overtaking his brother in the final round?”
A lively round of questions from the floor followed, with questioners seeking clarification on issues of legitimacy, tactical voting and the position of smaller parties, before each panellist was invited to give a 90-second closing argument.
And the result? A show of hands at the beginning and end of the evening showed that the debate had informed the audience, who felt both more confident that they now understood the issues and more certain about which way they were intending to vote.
However, while the number of people who had made up their minds increased, it increased at about the same rate for both the Yes and the No camps, and the audience remained, overall, undecided.
To listen to the introductions, click here.
To listen to the panel discussion, click here.
To listen to the Q&A, click here.
And don’t forget to vote!
