Month: March 2011

Eighty years ago, Winston Churchill warned the House of Commons that the Alternative Vote was “the stupidest, the least scientific, the most unreal” system of voting. He predicted that under AV elections would be decided by the “most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates”. It is no big surprise that Churchill was opposed to AV. After all, AV flies in the face of a fundamental British principle – one that has been the cornerstone of our democracy and a beacon to the rest of the world – the principle of one person, one vote. Look around the world and you see the legacy. Some 2.4 BILLION people use our voting system to choose their governments. It’s the most widely used system in the world. So what on earth will all these 2.4billion people think if they discover after May 5 that Britain has turned its back on two centuries of history and brought in a voting system which no one understands? But for me personally, there is an even bigger problem with AV: It gives more power to extremists. Why? The whole system is so complicated the problem is all too easily obscured. But the fact is that under AV, some people have more votes counted than others. Too often, those people tend to be the ones who vote for extremist parties. This means AV could see candidates pandering to extremist voters – because to win a seat they will need to win the support of people whose first choices have already been eliminated. It could have serious repercussions in constituencies where the BNP vote is bigger than normal. Take Dewsbury, which I lost by just over 4,000 votes in 2005. The BNP vote was 5,066 – more than the difference in votes between second and first place. It’s not hard to imagine where AV could lead in places like Dewsbury – more inflammatory campaigns, and policies which appeal to extremists. The second big problem with AV is that it risks giving parties such as the BNP more legitimacy. Under AV, voters would be able to register a protest vote without considering the electoral implications and then transfer back to a mainstream party. The long-term effects of that are clear: More votes, more power, more long-term legitimacy for the BNP and other fringe parties – so it is absolutely vital that we defeat AV. Generations have been served well by the British system, because under the first-past-the-post system fascists and extremists have consistently been excluded from Parliament. It is a record we should all be very proud of. We would be crazy to abandon this tried and tested system – and that’s why, like Churchill 80 years ago, Britain should again say no to AV.

The Rt Hon Baroness Warsi, Wednesday 29th March 2011 Speaking at Toynbee Hall on the impact of AV Salaam Alaikum, Shalom, Namaste! Thank you all for being here. It’s a privilege to welcome you to this historic setting. Toynbee Hall is a great symbol of what building a fair, responsible and cohesive society really means. Years ago, this hall stood at the heart of the British Jewish and Irish communities…. …and over time, its residents played an important part in London’s campaigns for fairness for ethnic minorities…. ….standing up against fascism in the 1930s…. …and fighting for a fairer, freer and more just society. Today, Toynbee Hall continues to build on that legacy… ….helping young people and local families from all faiths and backgrounds to play their part and succeed in their communities… So it is right that we come here today to talk about an issue which raises serious questions about all of these values…. ….and gets right to the heart of what it means to live in a free and fair democracy: The referendum on AV. ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE On May 5th, Britain faces a massive choice about the future of our democracy. I call it the mother of all elections… ….because this referendum will affect not just the outcome of the next general election… ….but the outcome of every single general election to come. Over the last few months, we’ve heard many of the reasons why AV would be wrong for our country. Many of Britain’s leading historians have said that AV would undermine centuries of political history. Prominent past and present Foreign Secretaries have argued that AV would limit our democratic influence in the world. We’ve even heard many leading Liberals – including Lord Owen – saying they oppose AV because it’s the wrong reform for our country. But this week, an even more important argument has taken centre stage…. …it’s an argument about a fundamental British belief… …a belief that has been the beacon of British democracy for centuries…. …a principle that has inspired millions of democrats around the world…. …the idea that one person should get one vote and every vote should weigh the same. Let me explain. For centuries, generations of British reformers have been inspired by that principle. They believed that because each person is equal – no matter who you are or what your background – every person should have an equal vote. It took many years for that principle to become part of our politics. But today, that principle stands as the cornerstone of our democracy – enshrined in the current system as one person, one vote. Look around the world and we see the legacy. 2.4 billion people use our voting system. It’s the most widely used voting system in the world. By contrast, only three countries in the world use AV. So ask yourself this: What on earth will all these billions of people think if they turn to the mother of all democracies after May 5th and find that Britain has turned its back on two centuries of history? Under AV, instead of one person, one vote – some votes get counted more than others Instead of everyone being equal, some people are more equal than others! So it’s absolutely vital that we defeat this disastrous, discredited and unfair voting system. As Winston Churchill put it in the 1930s: AV “is the stupidest, the least scientific and the most unreal” voting system. It means that elections “will be determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates.” And if it becomes part of our democracy: “an element of blind chance and accident will enter far more largely into our electoral decisions.. …..and respect for Parliament will decline lower than it is at present”. He knew then – like we know now – that AV is totally wrong for our country. AV AND EXTREMISTS But today, I actually believe that there’s an even bigger argument to make against AV. You see, the problem with AV isn’t just that it counts some people’s votes more than others. It’s the issue of who those people tend to be. Now AV is such a complicated and confusing system, that you’ll forgive me if I explain carefully exactly what I mean. Under AV, the candidate who comes bottom after the first round of voting is eliminated. But the people who voted for that candidate then get another bite of the cherry as their other preferences come into play. So while all the people who backed mainstream candidates only have their first preferences counted, all those people who picked fringe candidates have, in effect, a second or third bite of the cherry. It’s not just the sheer unfairness of this which gets me. It’s the fact that for some completely arbitrary reason, AV gives more power to those people – fringe voters, Monster Raving Loonies, and yes, fascists – who are voting for precisely the kind of extreme policies most people want to marginalize. You don’t need me to tell you that this represents a serious danger to our democracy. It means that bigots will be given more power in our politics… ….and extremists will look to gain more influence over mainstream parties. The danger is that under AV, our whole political system would take a giant leap backwards, becoming more warped and disproportionate as fringe voters hold sway. Now before I go any further, let me be categorically clear: I am absolutely not saying that this is something anyone in the Yes campaign want to see. Of course, the people backing the Yes Campaign rightly abhor extremism and I don’t for one second doubt their sincerity. What I am saying is that, yes they may be sincere, and yes, they may oppose extremism…. …but by backing AV, they’re backing a system which rewards extremism and gives oxygen to extremist groups. The fact is that whichever way you come at it, AV has some very worrying unintended consequences – and we need to make this clear to people before it’s too late. What I am saying is grounded in very solid evidence. This week, the No Campaign published some very important research about the last general election campaign. They showed how it is possible that in 70 per cent of all seats, under AV, if you had voted for any of the three mainstream parties – Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat – only one of your votes would have been counted. By contrast, the average BNP voter could have had at least two votes counted under AV…. …and in some cases, supporters of the BNP and the National Front could have had as many as six votes counted. Right here in this constituency for example, in Bethnal Green and Bow, it could have taken at least nine rounds of voting to decide the winning candidate… ….and if you had voted BNP, at least three of your votes could have been counted. Now here in this constituency, in Rushanara Ali, you have a fantastic female Asian Member of Parliament. We may be from different Parties, but I am proud that it’s First-Past-the-Post that got her there! So it’s absolutely clear that AV represents a real and present danger to our democracy. And in particular, I believe that AV risks three very worrying things. PANDERING First and foremost, under AV, there’s a real risk that candidates would pander to extremists. Why? Because to win a seat, candidates will need to win the support of those whose first choices have already been eliminated – and in many seats, that means the BNP. This could have serious repercussions on those constituencies where the BNP vote is bigger than the majority. Take Dewsbury, which has a big personal relevance to me. Back in 2005 I stood for my home seat of Dewsbury and lost by just over 4000 votes. At the same time, the BNP vote was 5,066; more than the difference in votes between the top two parties. So it’s not hard to imagine where AV could lead in places like Dewsbury: More inflammatory campaigns, and more policies which appeal to people’s worst instincts rather that to the values of the mainstream. LEGITIMACY But this is just the start of it. The second risk with AV is that it could give parties like the BNP more legitimacy. Let me be clear what that means. Under AV, voters would be able to register a protest vote without considering the electoral implications – and then transfer back to a mainstream party. The long-term effects are sadly all too clear: More people backing fringe parties because they feel they can do. More votes and more long-term legitimacy for the BNP. All adding fuel to the fire and giving the false impression that voting BNP is actually ok. Tied to this problem is another one: More horse-trading. Under AV, with hung parliaments more likely, it will be the smaller parties who often hold the balance of power. Just imagine what that could mean for British democracy. Party leaders striking bargains with extremist parties. Unsavoury promises and dodgy deals. And meanwhile, the representatives of those fringe parties enjoying greater stature and credibility as they swan off to meetings with leaders of the mainstream parties. Now while I’m on this particular issue, let me address head on an argument levelled by the Yes campaign. They point to the BNP’s position in this referendum and say that Nick Griffin wants to keep First Past the Post. In response, let me read you this: ‘To continue fighting first-past-the-post elections and securing an ever-dwindling vote is simply a recipe for demoralisation and failure’ Those are the words of Mr. Griffin after his party’s disastrous performance in last year’s election – an election run under First Past the Post! The point is that you and I know well that there is nothing the BNP say which has any value and it can never be taken seriously. It’s all about tactics and deals. And let’s be clear: What the BNP really want is PR… ….because as Nick Griffin puts it, under PR the BNP “could easily fill a bus with BNP MPs”. AV COULD MEAN PR And that brings me to the final point I want to make. Many of those who are campaigning for AV actually don’t want AV at all. They see AV as a stepping stone to another change in our voting system whereby we adopt PR. But in the north of England, PR has let in two BNP Members of the European Parliament. The fact is that of all the main voting systems, first-past-the-post has one of the strongest records when it comes to excluding extremists from Parliaments. So it’s absolutely vital that we do everything we can to protect it – starting on May 5th. CONCLUSION The point about this referendum is that it’s not just a choice between two counting systems. This is a choice between different values. Whether it’s right that some people should have more votes counted than others. Whether it’s right that our democracy should give extremists more power. And above all, whether we should abandon our simple, straightforward, tried-and-tested voting system and replace it with another which is dangerous as well as unfair. So that’s why, right here and right now, we need to pull together and fight for our democracy. Let the message go out from Toynbee Hall: We don’t just say No to AV, we say yes to our voting system. We say yes to One Person One Vote. So when, in years to come, people say: where were you when they decided the future of our democracy? What did you do to win this debate? We can all stand up and say: I was there. I was there when we protected our democracy. I was there when we stopped extremists getting more power. I was there when we protected one person, one vote. I was there when we said No to AV. (29th March 2011)

Published in The Telegraph, Saturday 5th March 2011 By Robert Winnett, Deputy Political Editor Ever since Baroness Warsi was appointed Britain’s first Muslim Cabinet minister she has faced serious threats from Islamic extremists. The role has made her one of the most high-profile targets in politics — so much so that her family has urged her to step away from the limelight. But the co-chairman of the Conservative Party, who is 40 later this month, said she believed the cause was too important. Her rise from a working class childhood to the highest echelons of the Tory party is said to play well with Thatcherite root-and-branch members. She is aware that for many people she represents the “aspirational, working-class opportunity”. The baroness said: “I spoke to a girl only about six months ago who said her brother and father were asking her to stand as a councillor. “She was quite shocked because she never thought this was what her family would ask her to do. ‘Oh we want you to do that because look how well Sayeeda Warsi has done.’ So it has now become an aspirational thing.” Such conversations — and the threats she has received — have led to her thinking long and hard about the risks she is taking. But she concluded: “Why go into politics if you are not going to be brave? If you want to stand on the sidelines and not stand up for what you believe in, politics is the wrong game to be in. “If that means you have a short but productive life, that is worth doing.” Last month, she stirred controversy after claiming that prejudice against Muslims in this country had “passed the dinner table test” and was now seen as socially acceptable. The remarks caused her to be criticised amid suggestions that she had angered the Prime Minister. So, is the woman apparently prepared to die for her work, now shying away from further controversy or might she make another speech about religion? “Despite what you might read in the great newspapers, David [Cameron] is quite keen for me to do another one.” The fighting attitude may prove crucial in what she believes will be a dismal few years for the Tories. The baroness is doing all she can to rally the party. She arrives in Cardiff today for the Conservative spring conference having travelled via Yorkshire, Scotland and London over the past 48 hours. Baroness Warsi is resigned to several years of electoral meltdowns before her job becomes easier – hopefully in time for the next general election in 2015. Thursday’s by-election, in which the Tories were beaten into third place in Barnsley by Ukip, was another reminder of the scale of the task before her. “We will do badly in the local elections and Labour should do very well because of where we are in the electoral cycle,” Baroness Warsi said. Conservative strategists are privately forecasting that Ed Miliband will recapture at least 1,000 council seats this May, although the baroness refuses to be drawn on figures. However, she said the party was not experiencing any “honeymoon” from being in power. “We had no honeymoon to walk into,” she said. “They left us with a huge mess … you are not going to be popular. But we did not form this Coalition in the interests of being popular – well, neither of the parties did that – we formed this Coalition to clear up the mess – to act in the national interest.” Baroness Warsi said the party’s success or failure at the next election would be entirely reliant on the performance of the economy. “Everything else that we deliver has to be delivered alongside a more balanced and stable economy,” she said. “If we deliver that more balanced and stable economy before the next election then that is a record that we will go on and that is what we are all working towards.” But, in the coming weeks, the Tory chairman has a more pressing priority — to stop a change in the voting system. On May 5, there will be a referendum on switching from a first-past-the-post electoral system to the alternative vote in which candidates are ranked. There is widespread apathy towards the referendum and the Conservatives are growing increasingly alarmed. If the system changes, Mr Cameron may find himself – and his successors – never able to win a general election outright. Baroness Warsi has the task of trying to increase public awareness towards the “threat”. She said: “I think it would be a disaster for good, strong democratic elections in this country. “That’s the one [poll] I am concentrating on and saying to my colleagues up and down the country – that’s what we should be focusing on. Now is the time to get passionate to avoid apathetic politics for ever.” The Conservatives are clearly rattled by celebrities such as Colin Firth, the recent Oscar winner, who are lining up behind the campaign in support of electoral reform. She said: “If you can get some stars like Colin Firth and others to add a bit of stardust to it, yes it might sound sexy or it might sound exciting and it might sound like change, but once you start going through the arguments of what it is – people very quickly switch to ‘no’.” “This situation is far too serious for it to be about razzmatazz. “I mean if people said to me, ‘would you want to go and do the same razzmatazz?’, I would actually say this is more than about the stardust. This is actually about the fundamental values of our country.”