I've included below a slightly expanded version of a letter I submitted to the Weekly Worker (
http://www.cpgb.org.uk) earlier this afternoon. An edited version should be on-line on Thursday...
The call by 44 Tory MPs to get the date of the referendum on switching to the alternative vote (AV) from first-past-the-post (FPTF) changed from that of the elections to the Scottish parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly, and some English local elections, as proposed by the Tory/LibDem coalition government, is justified. They argue that the turnout would be higher in areas where there are other elections, which would skew the referendum result. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg's excuse in parliament that local elections take place in 84% of England is valid but the slight skewing is still undemocratic and arguments around this threaten to overshadow the much more important issues at stake. Furthermore, Clegg's argument that holding them on the same date would save £17 million is pitiful considering the size of the deficit.
Also, there is a case to be made that holding different elections/referenda on the same date reduces coverage in the media of those deemed less important. Whereas there was a massive hoo-ha in the media about the confusion caused by holding Scottish parliamentary and Scottish local elections on the same date in 2007, leading to many spoilt ballot papers, the democratic deficit caused by the mass media (and the socialist press)completely ignoring the local elections as far as I could tell (living in Glasgow and reading one of the two serious Scottish newspapers, The Herald, most days) apart from some discussion of the electoral system (the much better single transferable vote form of proportional representation which could have led to a sizeable number of socialists being elected if better explained, pointing out the lack of a need to vote tactically, and explanation of the issues plus the Scottish Socialist Party and Solidarity taking those elections seriously). This hoo-ha has thankfully led to the postponement of the next Scottish local elections to 2012.
However, there is a danger in the argument about a referendum date being used to postpone it to a later date, rather than holding it earlier, which would increase the possibility of a mass movement by ordinary people against the cuts, involving demonstrations and general strikes like in Greece, bringing the coalition government down before the voting system is changed, leading to another general election under the grossly unfair FPTP system. Indeed, international financiers may deliberately pull the plug on the British economy before the date of the referendum to provoke the government being brought down earlier than would otherwise be the case!
In 'Fight for genuine PR' (July 8,
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker2/index.php?action=viewarticle&article_id=1004012), Peter Manson makes the important point that AV, while far from perfect and not at all proportional, would enable votes for socialists to be registered without compromising the chances of second or third preferences.
AV would also allow the Liberal Democrats to split, perhaps between "social liberals" - in favour of greater civil liberties - and "economic liberals" - in favour of ultra-free markets, like much of the current LibDem leadership inspired by the Orange Book (the last copy of which I bought at Amazon.co.uk after the election, which includes articles by Nick Clegg, Vince Cable, Chris Huhne and David Laws, although some of them may not be in favour of the more extreme proposals, in particular replacing the NHS with health insurance and tearing brown trade barriers - I have not read much of the book yet but plan to review it soon).
Perhaps elements within the LibDems will put more pressure on their Tory allies after a switch to AV, being less afraid of provoking a split between social and economic liberals. Indeed, the LibDems being more bold could lead to the Tories splitting if the latter party's leadership acquiesces to many of their demands, in which case the coalition would need additional partners that could only come from New Labour, opening up the possibility of those opposing joining the resulting "national government" becoming the nucleus of a new socialist party in parliament!
CPGB member (and Weekly Worker letters' editor) Steve Cooke (on Facebook I think) pointed out that in most countries with PR, they are separate parties with the social liberals generally forming coalitions with social democratic parties (like Labour historically and perhaps in the future though it is argued by some, specifically the Socialist Party of England or Wales, with some justification, that New Labour is a big business party with democratic structures removed that would enable it to better reflect the views of working class people) and economic liberals generally forming coalitions with Conservative parties.
Such a realignment would facilitate open discussion on what coalitions would be formed and what policies they would have before general elections, as opposed to the current farce of backroom deals between leading Tories and LibDems, cooking up policies with little resemblance to proposals published in the parties' manifestos, particularly on reorganisation of the NHS - with the ludicrous proposal, not even in the coalition agreement, to give 80% of NHS funding to GPs and consequent lack of planning over which hospitals to keep open, never mind treatment of mental illness with the massive incentive to just prescribe medication, even when less suitable than a potentially long period in a psychiatric ward.
