A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a letter to the Salford Advertiser’s “readers’ viewpoint” page in reponse to Blackley & Broughton MP Graham Stringer’s column. It was printed in this week’s edition (albeit edited down to the required 300 words), but unfortunately the Editor has decided not to attribute the letter to me, even though I provided my name, address and permission to print both.
Here is the complete unexpurgated response to Graham Stringer’s column on the Alternative Vote:
I was astonished to read Graham Stringer’s column in last week’s Advertiser (Thursday 29th July) where he announced he would be voting against the introduction of the Alternative Vote (AV) in next year’s referendum.
In this year’s general election, Mr Stringer’s party campaigned on a manifesto pledge to introduce AV immediately and then later to hold a referendum on Proportional Representation. Clearly, this promise was an act of political opportunism, designed to facilitate a coalition deal with the Liberal Democrats in the event of a hung Parliament. No wonder Mr Stringer’s party are so bitter about the outcome.
Labour was the only party to make such a pledge yet, as a party, they are now vehemently against the policy. Then again, the Labour Party has never been particularly fastidious about observing manifesto pledges. One example was its promise at the 2005 general election to hold a national referendum on the new EU constitution, only to abandon the idea once safely re-elected. That act of calculated cynicism is about to be replicated, once again on a major constitutional issue.
Mr Stringer and his party accuse the coalition of ‘gerrymandering’, a word which in the past has been used to describe how the voting system has been used to exclude Catholics in Northern Ireland, or black and poor people in the United States, from exercising their rights. The accusation is one of the most serious any party can make as it is tantamount to an accusation of electoral corruption.
AV is not wrong or illegal nor is it less proportionate than our current first past the post system. Indeed AV is used all over the world in such countries as Australia, Ireland, Scotland and even some American Mayoral elections use the AV system. Nor is it wrong to adjust constituency boundaries which, at present, only benefit Labour (possibly to the tune of an extra 5-7% of votes). The truth of the matter is that Labour is keen to protect an electoral system that favours large parties and disenfranchises voters, they are also keen to protect the current constitutional boundaries that favour Labour.
In trying to explain his position Mr Stringer has taken Winston Churchill’s comments about democracy and misused them, I believe because he did not understand what Churchill was saying: progress is good and if you don’t change or develop then you’ll never have a better system of democracy. Churchill did not say that what comes later is worse; he said that whatever comes after is an improvement.
Finally, in his column, Mr Stringer drew attention to some 3.5 million potential voters that are unregistered in this country and stated that some of those people are unlikely to vote Conservative, implying some sort of conspiracy. Two things occurred to me when I read this most ridiculous comment: firstly, unless Mr Stringer has developed telepathic powers, he has no idea how those 3.5 million people would be likely to vote; secondly, if those 3.5 million people are so unlikely to vote Conservative why, after thirteen years of government, didn’t Mr Stringer’s party do more to ensure that they were registered to vote? Furthermore, none of the proposed changes will prevent these 3.5 million people from registering to vote in the future, making Mr Stringer’s comments all the more ridiculous.
But why would I expect a fair debate and accurate information from someone who denies the existence of dyslexia, a condition which is very real to the 6m dyslexia sufferers in the UK today? That Mr Stringer denies the existence of dyslexia, which affects 10% of his constituents, is not that surprising when you consider he denies that AV and PR are fairer voting systems that would ensure more electors’ votes count in an election.
I have written to my own MP, Hazel Blears, asking her to support AV in next year’s referendum and urge Mr Stringer to stop thinking about himself and vote with his conscience, for the benefit of those he claims to represent.
