I recall being at a party organised by one of the main spokespeople for the Yes to AV campaign a couple of months after the referendum had taken place. One guy who was a friend of the host told me that in the end, he’d voted No. The reason he gave was this:
“I’d like to see a change in this country. But not change as big as you guys wanted. Not a revolutionary thing like you guys were campaigning for.”
The reason this moment sticks in my head is simple: it contains within it not only all the reasons the Yes side were crushed in that particular referendum, but just how hard it is to affect genuine political change in Britain. Because it would be hard to think of a smaller, less incremental change than moving from a First Past the Post voting system to AV. Calling it a minor wrinkle in the system would be extremely flattering to the Alternative Vote; even the Electoral Reform Society, who were a major player in the Yes campaign, had to admit after the 2015 election that it would have affected around 10 seats at the very most.
So if that’s the kind of thing that freaks people out enough to run to the polls to vote against it, Jeremy Corbyn should think long and hard about some of his more radical ideas. The very notion that the same people who a little over four years ago were terrified of having to put numbers on a ballot paper instead of an X are going to now be open minded on whether Britain maintains a nuclear deterrent or not, has a more open door immigration policy, or will allow nationalisation by theft to take place in their names is pretty far-fetched, in my opinion.
They want to change things, the Cobynistas. You know what, I don’t agree with the changes they want to make, but I’m a democrat so let them go for it. I just think that they may make the major mistake most left-wing movements make: they want to change too much, too fast, instead of focusing on the few things that they could feasibly do without freaking people out. Re-nationalisation of the railways, as a for instance: that is completely doable. Most people are broadly in favour so long as it is affordable. That would be a major change. While I really don’t agree with this one, removal of all private sector involvement in the NHS: again, probably has enough popular support to happen, with some willpower.
But the positions on Trident, NATO (although that’s softening already), printing money and telling the Bank of England that if they don’t like they will come under tight Westminster control – these things are real vote losers, guys. If you don’t believe me, then fine. Just remember there are changes that have a real chance of happening that you’d like to see happen that will not happen in your lifetime simply because you wanted the whole menu at the same time.
I always thought the mistake of the Yes to AV campaign was failing to make the proposition difficult to disagree with – ‘Why not 50%’ ‘…a small but important change to make our electoral system better.’
Similarly with something like Trident then: ‘If you were this soldier (picture) would you want body armour, the best kit and air support, or Trident?’ ‘Would you pay more tax fro Trident or have our soldiers without air support?’
Thankyou Nick, you’ve made a very nice justification for my standpoint on PR, where I believe an AMS system (small tweak but big effect) is what we should be going for, not (as the Electoral Reform Society advocates), with its potential to completely confuse some voters, STV.
The thing about Corbynite (and UKIP) ideas, theoretically they’re popular but the same people who think utilities shoiuld be renationalised would end up not voting for a party that proposed to do what they “want”because in the public mind it’d be associated with profligacy. Likewise a party that’s as anti-immigrant as they “want” would be associated with nastiness, etc.
As I think I said earlier, the mere fact of this debate means that the Corbynites have won a kind of victory and will (to my regret) get their ideas mainstreamed, just as Scottish nationalists have done, and Eurosceptics.
I knew we (can I say we) would lose the AV referendum when apolitical people started spouting the Scum/Heil line, tragically. I know UKIP were officially for it but I bet most of their voters weren’t, and they’re suffering therefrom. I voted Yes and I’m sorry you/we lost.
Why this obsession with Trident?
It’s not independent – without US guidance systems and U.S. OK to launch, we are screwed – it’s just a vanity defence project to try and keep Britains imperial past alive, and a few more Admirals on the books.
What’s the current Admiral to ship ration? Much greater than 1 to 1 I bet.
Most of the rest of Europe and NATO manage without nukes, or is it just if the French have one, then we must?
Puerile, money pit and childish, NOT strategic and certainly no defence against today’s real threats
If Corbyn had his wish we would cease to be a free market economy, and we all now how they end up!
Do I have to remind you Nick that jeremy Corbyn has not even been elected! All his policy ideas are just ideas and he will be the first to tell you that. In the event of him winning there will be wider debate and he himself said that he wouldn’t dictate policies, it’s for the party to finally decide. So before you start agreeing and disagreeing why don’t you just wait and see!
Thankyou Nick, you’ve made a very nice justification for my standpoint on PR, where I believe an AMS system (small tweak but big effect) is what we should be going for, not (as the Electoral Reform Society advocates), with its potential to completely confuse some voters, STV…