Beyond the AV vote: Why Greens should see this result as an opportunity

Last week produced some fantastic results for the Greens across the United Kingdom, including an amazing opportunity here in Brighton for us to prove our mettle as a viable local authority. That said, the results were tinged with the depressing resolution of the AV campaign, which was comprehensively lost with 68% of those who voted rejecting a change to the voting system. To many Greens that I’ve spoken to since the referendum, a mood of resignation has descended, especially for those areas where results weren’t as favourable for the Green Party. The prospect of reform seems further away than ever.

However, I was always a little concerned that we were putting a lot of eggs in one basket. Pinning hopes on a change that will produce modest gains in support for us isn’t a sustainable strategy. It felt like a panacea for our electoral ills and risked letting us off the hook of undertaking the heavy lifting of developing local groups around the country. Yesterday, I read an interesting piece on The Daily (Maybe), which highlighted the close relationship between those local areas who voted “Yes” to AV and those that had (or until recently had) successful Green representation in their local council.

For me, the lesson is clear. We have proved in places like Norwich, Lewisham, Brighton and Oxford that with strong organisation, sound local policies and tenacious candidates, we can make gains even with a voting system stacked against us. We need to concentrate now on winning seat by seat. Over the longer term, this provides us a stronger base and voice with which to make the case for reform, if and when the next opportunity occurs. This ties in with a point I made in my last post, when I argued that one of the greatest challenges to the Green Party is capacity-building and mentoring potential activists and candidates. Now more than ever, successful local Green parties need to invest time back into sharing their strategies and working methods with regions where we need to expand, such as the North-east of England.

Coupled with this, we need to understand why the AV referendum failed. It became a proxy verdict on the Liberal Democrats entering into coalition with the Conservatives. As I mentioned in my pitch for people to vote yes, it was terribly difficult to disentangle the fair rationale for change from party political advantage. We need to make the case better and argue for a more proportional system than AV alone would have delivered. (I would favour AV Plus, which steps toward proportionality but retains the constituency link that British voters treasure). The Green Party needs to draw together our best minds and work out two or three killer lines to sell on the doorstep, alongside two or three on why First Past The Post doesn’t work any longer in multi-party politics. We didn’t quite nail it last time. Lets leave criticism of our opponents out of it. The silver bullet is to make a cast iron case for fairness to all voters, regardless of party affiliation.

There is going to be no short-cuts on our journey, but we have momentum and the right arguments on our side.

When politics gets in the way of reform: lessons from Student Pride

Now the royal wedding has passed, it feels like the national conversation is turning squarely to the local elections and AV referendum later this week. In line with the temperature rise outdoors, this debate is becoming increasingly heated.

I’m quite enjoying a flurry of Green Party activity: canvassing voters, press-ganging my loved ones to help me stuff piles of direct-mail envelopes and yesterday, manning a stall here in Brighton with LGBT Green colleagues at Student Pride 2011

I confess it was my first visit to Student Pride and I wasn’t quite sure what to expect. First impressions were worrying: the VIP-only champagne lounge that most people seemed to have access into (I never saw the delights), free slices of pizza handed out faster than club flyers and streams of staff from event sponsor Ernst & Young dashing around trying to look busy.

But then the students arrived and I have to say how impressed I was with them. Whilst everyone was obviously enjoying their weekend away meeting new people, there was a tremendous appetite for political action. Caroline Lucas drew the loudest cheer from the audience for her introductory address and she succeeding in marrying some of the fiercest concerns of the audience to the wider political issues facing the UK.

Of the other speakers, John Amaechi, the ex-NBA sports star cum political commentator definitely proved himself worth following more closely. When talking about homophobia within the school system, he struck a challenging yet mature stance. He argued that we need to understand the motivations behind children’s fear of difference and work to problematise casual homophobia as thoroughly as we have with racism. He pointedly resisted the urge to demonise anyone. At an event where the need for positive LGBT role-models was frequently cited, his involvement was a sound choice.

Of the main political parties, only ourselves and the Liberal Democrats made a decision to attend and speak directly with students. In quite a savvy move, I noticed that the Lib Dems were eager to detoxify their brand, as their display consisted of around 90% Yes to AV material. Whilst we gamely offered to help with selling the AV campaign and had some considerable success in changing minds, I have to confess they were less respectful to us as we were to them!

What clues did our experience hold for the election? Mainly, that the Green Party enjoyed a deepening level of support amongst the students here. Yet this was tempered by the realisation that many of these same students rejected AV vigorously. When we talked about how AV would benefit the smaller parties, it became apparent that a great deal of people still didn’t know much about the issues. Comparing AV to X-Factor voting works wonders, however!

Most concerning was that nearly all the students we spoke to who came out automatically against a “yes” vote argued that it was because the Liberal Democrats were championing it. That was the most shocking part of my experience - how visceral the sense of betrayal and subsequent hatred has become towards them. I honestly don’t see how this level of toxicity towards the key architects of this referendum can be defused before Thursday. In the short term, this rejection of the Liberal Democrats can reap us some political dividends, but the loss of momentum towards electoral reform threatens our longer-term prospects much more. Things are about to get much harder.

Why saying YES to AV is a vote for accountable politics

A third of the public is still undecided on AV. I suspect part of the reason why they remain to be convinced is that there are two conversations taking place in every announcement on AV: debating the merits of the policy change itself and pushing naked party political advantage. We seem unable to divorce one from the other and as a result, cynicism is rife about this referendum. I’ll try my best to honestly disentangle them.

For me, the main reasons I favour AV are around fairness:

· First Past The Post (FPTP) worked as a system when we were largely a two-party state, but now smaller parties fare much worse under it in proportion to their national vote. Change would take us a closer step towards proportionality, albeit modestly.
· One of the striking things I noticed at the time of the expenses scandal was that MPs (from all parties) who held the safest seats were more likely to abuse the system. I’d argue that solid majorities leave politicians less concerned with how their voters perceive their behaviour. The need to earn second preference votes will inevitably force them to change this outlook.
· The extremist parties such as the BNP won’t be able to use AV to gain a foothold in Parliament because their support is shallow beyond their first preference core vote.
· It won’t cost any more than FPTP.
· You still only get one vote, just more of an investment in your representatives, because they will be voted for by at least 50% of voters.

Looking at my self-interested Green Party perspective:

· Yes, research seems to indicate that there would be a reasonable improvement for our electoral chances. Traditionally, many people don’t vote for us because they fear their vote would be wasted, when they should vote tactically to prevent a disliked party getting into office. AV would allow them to give us their first preference, knowing that if we don’t succeed, they still have their insurance policy vote. This would allow voters to express real choice.
· Even if it doesn’t translate into seats, I argue that it would effect public perceptions of us and force the media to engage with us more seriously. Over the longer term, this shift would serve to build confidence in us amongst voters who wouldn’t ordinarily consider us.
· Under AV, second preference votes will become essential in elections. It means that the other major parties would be more likely to court our voters on our issues in order to obtain their second preferences. This should translate into our policies being championed by others, which I am not going to argue with!

I believe this change represents a modest step in the right direction. It’s by no means a perfect model, but I can’t lose sight that this fight has been going on for decades. At least this incremental change takes us a step further towards a more fair and proportional system - and AV would be likely to strengthen the hand of those political parties truly committed to longer-term change and overhaul of democracy.

At a time when the public is disenchanted with politicians, this referendum is a wake up call for them to listen to us, account for our views and fight slightly harder for our votes. Why would you sniff at the chance to tell politicians we expect more?