NOtoAV

David Cameron: “I just feel it, in my gut, that AV is wrong.”

Lord Reid: “This campaign is about defending the right of one person, one vote – a system that has been the foundation of our democracy for generations.”

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has been joined by former Labour cabinet minister John Reid in backing the cross-party No to AV campaign.

In a shared speech in Westminster today they outlined their reasons why they want to protect One Person One Vote and keep this principle at the heart of British democracy.

David Cameron said:

“Politics shouldn’t be some mind-bending exercise.

“It’s about what you feel in your gut – about the values you hold dear and the beliefs you instinctively have. And I just feel it, in my gut, that AV is wrong.

“There are three big problems with AV that strike at the heart of how I believe our democracy should work.

“First, I believe power should lie with the people – and AV would take some of that power away.

“Second, I believe there should be real accountability between the pledges politicians put in their manifestos and the action they take in government.

“AV would damage that chain of accountability. And third, I believe in the principle of one person, one vote.”

The Prime Minister concluded by saying:

“If you want a system that makes your politicians accountable.

“If you want a system that enshrines the principle of one person, one vote.

“You must vote on May 5th, and you must vote No to AV.

“The biggest danger right now is that Britain sleepwalks into this second-rate system, waking up on May 6th with a voting system that damages our democracy.

“We must not let that happen. So we’ve got to get out there and fight, and get out there and win.”

Lord Reid agreed by saying:

“This campaign is about defending the right of one person, one vote – a system that has been the foundation of our democracy for generations. A system that gives exactly the same voting rights to every single person, irrespective of background or station in life.

“That is the British way, it is the fairest way, and it is the best way.”

Lord Reid concluded the joint event with the Prime Minister by saying:

“I also stand alongside more than 200 Labour MPs and Peers, hundreds of Labour councillors up and down the land, thousands of rank and file Labour Party members, and my Labour colleagues, like Margaret Beckett, John Prescott and David Blunkett, and several members of the current Shadow Cabinet, all of whom are voting No to AV.

“But most importantly I stand with those ordinary people of this country who have no party affiliation at all, but who want to defend their own right to an equal and fair say in choosing their government. That is what this campaign is about.

“So my message today is simple.  It’s your vote. Your right to a fair say – a say and a vote equal to everyone else. No more, no less than any other voter in this country. Don’t let them take that right away. Vote No on the 5th of May.”

ENDS

NOTES TO EDITORS

Click here to view JOHN REID’s speech

DAVID CAMERON SPEECH

It’s great to be here today at the launch of a campaign that is important to the future of our democracy. And I am happy to share the stage with John. Now, I don’t think John will mind me saying: we don’t agree on much. But we do, absolutely, agree on this. AV would be wrong for Britain. It is obscure, unfair and expensive. It will mean that people who come third in elections can end up winning. It will make our politics less accountable and it would be a backward step for our country. And that’s why John and I are sharing this platform today.

We’re part of a wide coalition of people…

…from across political parties and from none…seasoned campaigners and people who have never been involved in political campaigns and…sportsmen and women, scientists and historians…young and old…who have come together because we are united and agree about one thing:

Britain should say No to AV.

POWER, PLEDGES, PRINCIPLE

In a moment, John will go through some of the problems with AV as he sees it.

First, let me tell you how I see it.

Too often debates about AV or other voting systems are less like political arguments, and more like scientific discussions, where people get lost in a language of proportionality and preferences, probabilities and possibilities. Of course, some of these things are important. But for me, politics shouldn’t be some mind-bending exercise. It’s about what you feel in your gut – about the values you hold dear and the beliefs you instinctively have.

And I just feel it, in my gut, that AV is wrong.

There are three big problems with AV that strike at the heart of how I believe our democracy should work.

First, I believe power should lie with the people – and AV would take some of that power away.

Second, I believe there should be real accountability between the pledges politicians put in their manifestos and the action they take in government. AV would damage that chain of accountability.

And third, I believe in the principle of one person, one vote. And AV will mean the votes of some people get counted more than others. Power, pledges and principle. Let me take each of those in turn.

POWER

First, power.

In a healthy, strong and robust democracy, power lies in the hands of the people, not political elites.

People vote politicians in.

Politicians are responsible for what happens.

If things go wrong, people should be able to make politicians answer for it.

And if the people don’t like the answer, they can kick the politicians out again.

I will always remember May 1997. I suspect John will too.

Yes, as a Conservative, the sight of the removal vans in Downing Street and John Major having to walk away was painful.

But I admit: it was right.

The last Conservative government had run out of steam, it was time for change – and our voting system helped deliver that change.

I would argue the same goes for 1979.

I’m just old enough to remember Labour being booted out of Number Ten and Margaret Thatcher coming in.

Again, the government of the day had had its day, and our voting system helped to get rid of them.

It’s simple, it’s decisive, it doesn’t mess around.

In a few short hours your vote in the ballot box can lead to the packing box outside Downing Street…painful words for a Prime Minister to say but true and that is the beauty of First-Past-the-Post.

One problem with AV is that it makes all this more unlikely.

Why?

Because it is not as decisive as First-past-the-post.

Indeed, if the last election was under AV, there would be the chance, right now, that Gordon Brown would still be Prime Minister.

Ok, the last election was not decisive in terms of who won.

But, I think, it was certainly decisive in terms of who lost.

And I think any system that keeps dead governments living on life support is a backward step for our democracy.

PLEDGES

The next big problem with AV is about the pledges politicians put in their manifestos.

The more people see a clear link between the pledges in a manifesto and the action taken in government, the greater the sense of accountability.

And the real, unavoidable truth about AV is that it would damage that chain of accountability…

…because it makes coalitions much, much more likely.

Now, it won’t surprise you to hear me say: coalitions in the right circumstances can be a good thing.

Our system has delivered coalitions when they’re needed for national unity – in two World Wars and during the Great Depression.

Usually a result like last year, with one party just twenty seats short of an overall majority, would have led in our system to minority government.

One of the reasons it didn’t was because of the scale of the economic challenges we faced.

I would argue that, once again, our system rose to the occasion.

So if I could wind back the clock eleven months I would do exactly the same as I did then.

But let’s be clear while a coalition in exceptional circumstances is one thing and I would agree a good thing…

…more frequent coalitions in all circumstances is quite another.

That would have a damaging effect on the responsibility politicians feel for the pledges they make to the public.

Let me explain why.

When we were fighting that election, this time last year, I had a personal stake in every single policy in the Conservative manifesto.

Everything in its pages was clear, costed and, in my view, doable.

I signed my name on that manifesto and I took ownership of every single pledge in it because I knew that if we were to win the election outright…

…which I sincerely hoped and believed we could…

…then I would be held accountable for each one of those pledges – and quite right too.

But can you just imagine how differently politicians would act if they knew the greatest likelihood was a coalition with another party?

On every occasion, they may start to put things in their manifestos that sound good but they can’t deliver, because they know that in a coalition they will not be made to answer for them.

So, I believe, this is what AV would give us:

Power with less responsibility.

And pledges with less accountability.

PRINCIPLE

The third problem with AV is about an important principle of our democracy.

It’s the principle that because each person is equal, they should have an equal vote…

…the statement that when it comes to electing those who lead us, we each have an equal say and an equal voice.

We call it: one person, one vote.

And this isn’t just the cornerstone of the British voting system.

It is a principle which is respected across the world.

Whether it’s India, the world’s largest democracy or America, the world’s most powerful democracy…

…people the planet over have been inspired by the principle: one person, one vote.

But if Britain votes for AV, that principle will be thrown out the window.

The proponents of AV believe it increases fairness – it doesn’t.

Indeed there is an unfairness at the heart of it.

It means rather than everyone’s vote being counted equally, some votes get counted more than others.

If you vote for a mainstream candidate who is top of the ballot in the first round, your other preferences will never be counted.

But if you vote for a fringe party that gets counted, but then knocked out, your other preferences will be counted.

That means some people can get two, three, four, even five bites of the cherry.

It means the second, third, perhaps even fourth vote of someone who supports the Monster Raving Loony Party can count as much as the first vote of someone who supports the Conservatives – or the Liberal Democrats or Labour for that matter.

This is unfair, it is wrong and it flies in the face of centuries of our history.

We have to keep our political system fair, equal, truly democratic…

…we cannot destroy the principle of one person, one vote.

CONCLUSION

So this is my message to the British people.

Yes, this referendum is about the voting system we use.

But it goes much further than that:

It’s about the kind of country we are, about the democracy we have.

It really is very simple:

If you want a system that lets you, as the Americans say, ‘throw the rascals out’.

If you want a system that makes your politicians accountable.

If you want a system that enshrines the principle of one person, one vote.

You must vote on May 5th, and you must vote No to AV.

The biggest danger right now is that Britain sleepwalks into this second-rate system, waking up on May 6th with a voting system that damages our democracy.

We must not let that happen.

So we’ve got to get out there and fight, and get out there and win.

ENDS

LORD REID SPEECH

(Checked against delivery)

This is a rather unusual event. There’s no doubt about that.

As the Prime Minister said, no one is pretending that he and I agree on everything.

There are some issues so important that they transcend party politics. Where we should rise above personal differences.  Issues on which people expect politicians to put aside their differences aside for the sake of the people, the country and the public interest.

Foremost among those issues is the right of the British people to decide their government — and to do that in a way that is fair, equal in weight, one to the other.

This campaign is about defending the right of one person, one vote – a system that has been the foundation of our democracy for generations. A system that gives exactly the same voting rights to every single person, irrespective of background or station in life.

That is the British way, it is the fairest way, and it is the best way.

An issue like this is too important to let party rivalries take precedence.

It is outrageous to try to secure a change to the electoral system for tactical party advantage, by usurping the right of all of our citizens to an equal vote? But there is a growing and well-founded suspicion that is exactly what the Yes Campaign and the leadership of the Lib Dems want – not a change in the public interest, but one based on narrow self-interest.

A change like that should never be about face-saving or self-interest or advantage for parties or personalities. Of course, every system has winners and losers. That is the nature of elections. The answer for the losing parties is to work harder to win more votes — not to demand that their voters get more votes than anyone else…..not to introduce a system that tries to change losers into winners. And a system where the first votes to count twice are the votes of the least popular candidate!

That’s one – only one – of the reasons that AV has always been rejected for choosing our government. This AV idea is not as new a suggestion as some people would have us believe. Back in the 1930’s, our greatest Prime Minister (and possibly the most famous ever Liberal Cabinet Minister) Winston Churchill was asked to consider it. He concluded that not only is AV “the stupidest, the least scientific and the most unreal” voting system – his words not some Labour attack dog – but he said that that it means that ultimately elections “will be determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates.”

And just as tellingly, he warned that should it ever become our way of choosing a government: “respect for Parliament will decline lower than it is at present”.

Maybe some of our politicians could learn from Churchill.

But maybe they could learn even more from non-politicians; people like the sportsmen and women who represent this country.  When they lose a contest or race, they pick themselves up, get back into the game and come back to fight another day. They don’t moan on about moving the goalposts to make things easier next time. And they don’t expect gold medals for finishing second, third or fourth or fifth.

In politics, as in sport, we all lose sometime. Like David I have had my disappointments.  During my time in politics I have seen days when the Labour Party did extremely well and I have seen days when Labour did extremely badly. When you lose elections it isn’t a nice experience.  But you take it on the chin. You accept the will of the people. What you don’t do is try to change the rules of the game to suit yourself.

Because, in our democracy it is not up to the Government to sack the electorate, or change the electoral system just because they, the politicians, don’t like the result.  In a democracy it works the other way round.

So we will put the case for our present system every single day until the 5th May. It may not be perfect – first past the post – few things are. But it is clear, fair, decisive and it treats all our citizens equally. It has served us well precisely because it is built on the bedrock of our experience as a democracy.

The case for the Alternative Vote has been built, I believe, on a mountain of sand.

They say MPs would work harder because it would end safe seats. This is totally absurd. In fact, it would have no effect at all on the scores of seats where MPs already get 50% of the vote, or even more, when they get close to it. And of the MPs supporting Yes I haven’t yet seen one step forward to say they don’t work hard at present – it must be everyone else! I think the electorate might be sceptical about that. There are things we can do to make MPs deliver – such as giving constituents the right to sack their MP — but AV would not make a jot of difference.

They say MPs would no longer have a job for life. I think Michael Portillo in 1997 and Lembit Opik last year, and hundreds of others, might have something to say about that. The current system doesn’t guarantee jobs for life – but hard work helps.

They say every MP would have majority support under AV. Again, not true. This could only happen if you made it compulsory for voters to mark a preference against every name on the ballot paper. And even then someone might be elected who was the first choice of only one in four voters.

They say it would increase turnout. But when AV was introduced in Australia turnout fell sharply, and they ended up making voting compulsory. Is that what we want – compulsory AV?  Do we really think people want to waste their time in polling booths pondering whether the Monster Raving Loony Party deserves their sixth or their seventh preference?

They say it would end tactical voting. The opposite is true. In reality AV would reinvent tactical voting, because the order in which candidates are eliminated is vital in determining the result.

They say it’s a step towards proportional representation – but it can deliver results less proportionate than now.

And the biggest myth about AV is that it will make every vote count. I have to tell you that there will always be winners and losers in any election. What we need is a system that ensures that everyone has an equal vote and that some votes shouldn’t count more than others.

And on top of that the AV system is complex, confusing and costly – which is why it has been rejected almost everywhere else in the world for choosing a government.

But above all it is not fair, not equal and not British.

That’s why I stand here today alongside David Cameron calling for a No vote.

I also stand alongside more than 200 Labour MPs and Peers, hundreds of Labour councillors up and down the land, thousands of rank and file Labour Party members, and my Labour colleagues, like Margaret Beckett, John Prescott and David Blunkett, and several members of the current Shadow Cabinet, all of whom are voting No to AV.

But most importantly I stand with those ordinary people of this country who have no party affiliation at all, but who want to defend their own right to an equal and fair say in choosing their government. That is what this campaign is about.

So my message today is simple.  It’s your vote. Your right to a fair say – a say and a vote equal to everyone else. No more, no less than any other voter in this country. Don’t let them take that right away. Vote No on the 5th of May.