NOtoAV

Thank you.  It’s great to be here and be part of this rally.

I’ve stood for election to public office quite a few times now.

I won election – under first past the post – to become a councillor in Merton in 1986 and in 1990.

I lost – under first past the post – in the 1992 general election and the Barking by-election in 1994.

I’ve won – under first past the post – in the last four general elections to represent Maidenhead in the House of Commons.

And as a member of the Conservative front bench, I’ve been involved in two losing general election campaigns as well as last year’s election – again, all under first past the post.

My point is this: win or lose, I’ve always supported first past the post.

Because choosing our electoral system is not about narrow party political interest.  It’s about making sure that elections deliver the will of the people, give parties a mandate to govern, and allow the electorate to hold governments to account.

It’s about the national interest, not the party interest.  So I’m delighted to be sharing a platform today not just with old friends like William Hague but with old opponents like John Healey, Lord Boateng and Lord Owen.
But for a referendum that’s about the health of our democracy, I think it’s fair to say the campaign has been a bit of a disappointment.  We haven’t captured the imagination of the public.  There’s been more name-calling than rigorous debate.  And there’s been more focus on what the referendum means for the political parties than what it means for the people.

So I want to use this opportunity to make the positive case for first past the post.

DELIVERING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE

First, our existing electoral system has a proven track record of delivering the will of the people.

As I said earlier, I’ve won under first past the post and I’ve lost under first past the post.  But even when I’ve been on the losing side, I’ve never questioned the result – because each time it clearly delivered the will of the people.

Whatever we Conservatives felt in 1997, 2001 and 2005 about the merits of our offer to the people, the electorate chose the other side.  I’m sure Labour wished the electorate had chosen differently in 1979, throughout the 1980s and in 1992, but they didn’t.  The will of the people was clear, and indisputable.

Even last year, when we ended up with a hung parliament, first past the post gave us the result the people wanted.  They were convinced that it was time for change.  But we Conservatives have to be honest – we failed to convince the public in sufficient numbers that we were ready to govern.

And so – however much we Conservatives wished we could form a majority – we got the government the people voted for: a coalition of two parties working together in the national interest.

Imagine an election held under AV in which a party wins by far the most votes, but is consigned to opposition because the second, third, fourth and even fifth preferences of voters outweigh the choice of voters who – because they support the most popular party – only get one choice.  Nobody would accept that was clearly the will of the public.

One person, one vote, delivered through first past the post is the simplest, clearest and best way to translate the will of the people into a fair election result.

A MANDATE TO GOVERN

The second reason I support first past the post is that it provides parties with a clear mandate to govern.

Our whole democratic system is built on the mandate that clear election results give to governing parties.  Since 1834, the mandate has been based on the agenda proposed by political parties in their manifestos.

Now, I’m not entirely convinced that there was ever a golden age when voters eagerly awaited the publication of a manifesto before reading it cover to cover and deciding how to vote.  And that obviously isn’t the case now.

But the contents of manifestos form the basis of election campaigns – whether they reach the public through the newspapers, TV and radio, pledge cards, leaflets, websites, independent campaign groups, canvassing, word of mouth or whatever – and that is how the public make their decision.

With first past the post, that mandate is clear.  With any electoral system that makes single party government less likely – and this is a key argument of the yes campaign – the mandate is no longer clear.  The will of the people will give way to backroom deals concocted by politicians and party fixers, who will be all too eager to drop difficult policies in the name of compromise.

HOLDING GOVERNMENTS TO ACCOUNT – AND KICKING OUT BAD ONES

A clear mandate means that voters can hold governments to account, and that’s my third reason for supporting first past the post.

It’s quite simple.  Parties put forward their programmes for government.  The people decide who governs.  And if the governing party breaks its promises or performs incompetently, first past the post allows the people – as the American phrase goes – to kick the rascals out.
Because it would lead to more hung parliaments and less clear – perhaps disputed – results, AV would let rotten governments cling on to power long after their sell-by date.

NO TO AV – AND YES TO FIRST PAST THE POST

I said earlier that the conduct of the referendum campaign has been disappointing.  So, before I finish, I want to say something about some of the claims that have been made during the campaign.

AV would not abolish safe seats.  It would not have stopped the expenses scandal.  It would not make MPs work harder.  It would not deliver a permanent majority for the ‘progressive left’.

It would be a miserable compromise that undermines rather than improves our democracy – and that is why it’s not even the first choice of the people running the yes campaign.
So we need to put every ounce of effort in these last 48 hours of the campaign to getting out the vote.

If like me you believe democracy is about delivering the will of the people…

If you believe that governing parties need to earn a democratic mandate…

If you believe that the public should be able to kick bad governments out of power…

Vote no to AV on Thursday – and yes to first past the post.