Living in the past

The letter to The Daily Telegraph, undersigned by prominent historians, that argues against the adoption of Alternative Vote may lend credence to opposing a change but only from the credulous. Professor Niall Ferguson is such a combative ideologue that I’m not surprised he would give his name to such a jejeune idea. Dr David Starkey is famed for not mincing his words but as a Tudor historian I’m not sure his area of expertise extends into the intricacies of democracy. Anthony Beevor is a man I have time for but I think his sympathies lean to the right. And this is the trouble with the whole letter – it is dishonest.
It claims to support the philosophical concept of ‘one man, one vote’ (though stripping that back to ancient Greece from where it harks – you historians know what is coming – why not exclude women, not to mention slaves?), yet I bet, left or right, the political affiliations of these historians are of a kind that they fear their party of choice would never enjoy a monopoly of power again. In order to show that ‘extremists and non-parties’ would gain representation (are all non-party members bad?), they quote Churchill like he is an oracle, when he denounced AV saying it would produce the most worthless candidates (though in his era, one Neville Chamberlain became prime minister under first past the post). It is like when the satire Brass Eye tricked radio presenter Dr Fox into saying “There’s no evidence for it but it’s a fact.” Why not quote Churchill about the defences of Singapore or whether India should be independent? He inspired this country to victory in one of its darkest hours but he didn’t always get it right.
From the other side of the argument comes Lord Owen, campaigning against AV ‘reluctantly’ because it is not Proportional Representation. He argues that AV is not an incremental step to PR because political systems need to crystallise and have stability and so AV may indeed retard PR (which is part one person, one vote, though I bet those historians who wrote in don’t support PR). I’m not content with AV and certainly AV+ (which is already used to elect the London mayor – with the current incumbent, how’s that for your extremist fringe?) and PR are more preferable options but it is better than nothing. It is a fool’s paradise to think a rejection of AV would strengthen the case for PR, the eighty years since the last referendum on voting reform proof positive of that. Anyway, there is still debate on how to elect the Lords when that finally get changed – PR could play a part in electing the upper chamber. Ultimately though, people will have one shot at this and if it is not adopted, will set the tone for decades. Half a loaf is better than no loaf.