Mark Valladares takes the "Open Up" campaign to task

There is an excellent post by Mark Valladares on Liberal Bureaucracy today where he rips into the "Open Up" campaign which is trying to force all parties at have open primaries. Mark nails the campaign for the distraction from real reform it is:

I'm afraid that this looks like a plot to remove smaller political parties, neuter the Liberal Democrats, and return British politics to the two-party red/blue politics of the 1950's. No, if they are serious about opening up the political process, why not campaign for multi-member open list constituencies elected using STV? That way, anyone can run, political parties are forced to offer up a range of candidates in order to appeal to a diverse community, and you abolish the safe seat.

Instead, this is not so much a missed opportunity as an attempt to hitch a ride on the bandwagon of public revulsion at politics, politicians and all of their works.

Spot on Mark.

STV is the one for me

Since I posted this yesterday I have been further deliberating on the merits of just focusing on debating the principle of proportional representation as opposed to specifically pushing for Single Transferable Vote (STV).

There have been others posting about this subject and I had a lively debate with Jennie Rigg on her blog yesterday too. I seem to be in a minority in what I suggested yesterday and most Lib Dem bloggers seem to think that it is vitally important to push for STV. As I mentioned previously my problem is that I have a lot of trouble trying to get my non-politically minded friends to even listen to me about this, let alone properly engage with what I am saying. I distinctly recall spending 10 minutes a couple of years ago explaining the First Past the Post system, its advantages and drawbacks, and why I thought STV was better. The person concerned is University educated and very intelligent but a few months later she asked me "What was that about again?". She couldn't remember what I had said. I think the problem is that some of the arguments are fairly arcane to all but the politically obsessed.

However the more I have been thinking about it, the more I am persuaded that specifically arguing for STV is the way forward. I have come across too many examples in comments on blogs, twitter and in the MSM making criticisms of "PR" that just do not apply to STV (mainly it puts all the power in the hands of the parties whereas STV does the exact opposite). In some cases I suspect people who have a partisan stake in the existing system are deliberately obfuscating the issue (as David Cameron did in yesterday's Guardian) but I am sure there are many who just do not know what STV is and genuinely think that all PR systems require party lists.

So I am coming on board the STV train. That doesn't mean that I will not still be behind Alan Johnson's calls for a referendum but whenever I mention it I will point out that the PR system I favour is STV. The Referendum 2010 campaign is also calling for one but they are remaining generic for now.

The debate is only just starting and we need to be ready to rebut all the canards and nonsense that will be thrown at us. It is clear to me now that all Cameron was doing yesterday was trying to hijack the reform debate so he can neutralise the threats to his personal and parties ambitions. That's fair enough as it is his job but we should go for him now and should not allow him to paint himself as the change needed. He isn't. Lib Dems are the true reforming progressives and people need to understand that if they really want to change the political system in this country, the quickest way to achieve it is to back us.

Debating different forms of PR

I am conflicted at the moment.

Jennie Rigg and Mark Valladares have both pointed out that Alan Johnson's favoured form of electoral reform to be put to a referendum at the time of the next election is not the best form of PR. Mr Johnson favours the AV+ system as recommended by the Jenkins Comission in 1998.

They both point out problems with AV+. Jennie mentions that it does not remove safe seats which is true, some will remain although I believe there will be less of them and at least each candidate has to get 50% of the vote. Mark points out that it is likely the top up lists used for this system will have the problems always associated with party lists. They both say that STV is the way forward.

The reason I am conflicted on this (and hence why I mentioned Mr Johnson's idea this morning without unpacking the specifics of the PR system he suggests) is because I fear there is a risk that this golden opportunity could degenerate into a debate between different PR systems which will just confuse and turn off non-political people (i.e. 90-odd percent of the country).

I also favour STV and am on the record numerous times on this blog advocating it. However, if it came to a choice between retaining FPTP or going for AV+, I would go for AV+. I think it is right that others are raising this question and I can understand where he is coming from when Mark says:

Amidst the sea of people applauding Alan Johnson for proposing a revisit of the recommendations of the Jenkins Commission, I feel the need for a raft for those who wish to blow a raspberry.

However, I have waited so long for an opportunity like this that I would rather stick to the principle of arguing for PR now rather than get drawn into the details. Once the political momentum is with a referendum and it looks like it is going to happen then I think that is the time for the merits of AV+ vs STV to be debated more. We don't all need to sign up right now to a specific system.

The Referendum 2010 campaign is taking this approach and it is worth taking a look at what they are saying. It is similar to Mr Johnson but they just talk about PR in a generic sense.