Shropshire MPs united against Alternative Vote
Wednesday 13th April 2011, 9:39AM BST.
Tory Philip Dunne and Labour’s David Wright were today putting their political differences behind them to warn voters in Shropshire against changing Britain’s electoral system.
They agreed to join forces to push for a “No” vote in the May 5 referendum.
They will aim to persuade the country to vote against ditching the traditional first-past-the-post system for the alternative vote, whereby voters rank candidates by order of preference.
Votes are redistributed until one person emerges with more than 50 per cent of the vote.
Mr Dunne said: “I am glad to stand alongside colleagues from all political parties who believe in one person one vote, not giving more weight to those who vote for the least popular candidates. AV is also a costly system which gives more power to politicians and less to voters.”
Mr Wright said: “There are many issues which divide Philip and I, but on this we are united.
“The current system maintains a clear constituency link and provides, in the most part, for strong and stable government.
“In the current economic climate, spending £250 million on a cosmetic change to the way government is elected is, in my view, a waste of money,” he added.
UK News
Most Commented
- Clampdown on Shrewsbury chuggers
- Bishop's gay marriage views do nothing to support bible teachings
- Letter: Alcohol price plans annoy me
- Planners ordered to stay on Newport visit bus
- Letter: Angered by close encounter of the furred kind
- Letter: No sense in overseas job adverts
- The Bleak Old Shop of Stuff doesn't raise a smile
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
Entertainment
All the film reviews
Before you plan a trip to the pictures, get our critics' verdicts on all the latest movie releases.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
shropshirestar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
I’ve no allegience to any side however I do find the comments of David Wright about use of public funds amusing, and this a man who with his cohorts fiddled whilst Rome burnt.
Report abuse
Well if our MP’s don’t like it then must be good reason to vote yes.
MP’s haven’t changed over the years, when it was proposed that the system be changed to give women the vote MP’s were orginally against it.
Sitting MP’s have never liked electoral reform, it might put them out of job, but they should remember that they are servants of the electorate on not the other way round.
Report abuse
Of course the yawning black hole in that argument is this referendum on changing the voting system is not as a result of a groundswell of popular pressure on politicians, but rather a dirty little deal cooked up between Conservative and Liberal leaders to advance their own powers and to grab the reins of government. The main parties have been bleeding suport for some time AV will gift them votes not intended for them, by voters who do not want their polices and do not belive they will govern in the interest of this country or its people. That was the real message from the last election, we did not vote for this government we voted a plague on all your houses.
Report abuse
About this £250m claim. I read somewhere that it is based on the assumption that there will be counting machines but in reality votes will still be counted by hand like in Australia. According to my best estimate the cost of the referendum is the same whether there is a yes or a no vote.
Report abuse
The Tory Party uses AV in the election of its party leader.
Since the Tories can understand AV, surely anyone can.
Report abuse
Philip Dunne says AV gives more weight to those who vote for the least popular candidates. And?
Let’s say I vote for Jim, my wife votes for Bob and my daughter votes for Bill. Bill isn’t popular and gets the least votes of anyone, so he is removed and my daughter’s second preference is Bob. This helps Bob win the election. How is that unfair to anyone?
Report abuse
It looks unfair as your daughter has in effect had 2 votes.
What about 1 man/woman 1 vote, when i choose a candidate, i never have a 2nd choice as most if not represent my views/polictal sway.
Report abuse
AV means that all the politians from whichever party will have to engage with a much broader slice of the whole electorate than simply relying on their own loyalists – how can this be a bad thing? Apart from the obviously of being much more annoying than usual on the doorstep when canvasing!!
Report abuse
So you are sort of arguing that politians must ape each others polices, but that is the problem we already have, it is a problem because it removes choice from the voters. AV will only make matters worse and will not offer us greater choice. We should be able to choose not only the person but the polices, if they are all offering the same what choice.
Report abuse
So it’s not unlike now really where all the politians seem to have melded into a generic stereo type all trying to capture the ‘middle ground’. Try and spot the difference between Clegg Cameron and Milliband for example
Report abuse
Yes Sam you are quite right AV however will not address those problems but make matters worse as it will up to the parties after the election to decide who and what polices.
Report abuse
Well your daughter has had two votes she lost out on her first choice so her second is counted as equal to your first. Do you really think that is fair?
Report abuse
Yes I do. We all had more than one vote. My second vote was also for Bob. So my second vote helped Bob get in too, even though he wasn’t my first choice. As long as everyone has more than one vote, it is still a fair system.
Report abuse
Only for those who vote for second and third options, in other words only for those who do not care who lives in NO 10 or what polices they might follow.
Report abuse
If you think that people who put down a second option in an AV vote do not care about who wins, you clearly do not understand AV. By voting for more than one candidate you aren’t saying any of them will do. Read an impartial review of what AV is about, rather than one trotted out by those with a vested interest in the current system.
Report abuse
AV will allow the person most people DID NOT want to be their MP to beat the person most people DID want to be their MP, by counting 2nd and 3rd choices as if they were the 1st choices.
It is obvious that people who will settle for a system of 2nd or 3rd choices that will create hung parlimets and dirty back room deals where a government and its polices are decided by a politcal elite after the people have voted, will not care who runs the country or its polcies.
Report abuse
That makes no sense. The person most people do not want to be their MP will be eliminated in the first round.
And AV will not lead to an increase in hung parliaments. That is another myth.
Report abuse
No the person who most people want to be their MP will often loose out the the person most people selected as 2nd or even 3rd choice, in other words to voters who did not want that person to be MP.
The myth is that AV will not lead to more hung Parliaments it will increase the Liberal vote and make them kingmaker in all but landslide elections, I wonder why they are so keen.
Report abuse
Let’s say I vote for Jim, my wife votes for Bob and my daughter votes for Bill. Bill isn’t popular and gets the least votes of anyone, so he is removed and my daughter’s second preference is Bob. This helps Bob win the election. How is that unfair to anyone?
Because they are all men?
Anyway Bill will never be popular, who wants Bill arriving at their door? ;)
Report abuse
Actually Bob is short for Bobby and she is Shropshire born and bred. She cares about local people. Ordinarily I would vote for her, but I don’t want her party running the country so I am forced to vote for Jim. Another flaw in the General Election vote!
Report abuse
You wouldn’t be happy if you backed a horse and it passed the line first only for there to be a shared betting of the last till one had 50% total madness let the winners win please vote no to av
Report abuse
Crazy comparison. A first past the post horse does not go on to decide how the country/county/town is run.
Report abuse
No we the people are supposed to decide how the country is run by voting for the people who offer the polices we would like. AV removes that possibility because the horses will get together after the race and make that decision for us, thus one more fence between the voters and the political elite.
Report abuse
You appear to be suggesting AV creates more chances of coalition governments. This is statistically proven to be untrue. Again, I suggest you read more about AV rather than listening to the nonsense being spouted by MPs who fear for their seats.
Report abuse
Horses are animals and don’t know anything about politics. Politicians are humans and run the country. This is why it is crazy to compare First past the post with horse racing.
Report abuse
Prof. Vernon Bogdanor research professor at King’s College London retired last year as professor of government at Oxford is the formost expert on the British constituion, he argues that AV will produce more hung Parliments and thus more coalitions by increaing the Liberal seats in parliament!
So I have read something about this subject! I have also recived every comunication from the Yes2AV group over the past few months and I am not convinced by their arguments.
Report abuse
Depends if I placed an each way bet!
Report abuse
Look at the figures for the 2005 General Election.
Not one of the county MPs obtained 50% of the vote.
Under AV, none of the MPs would have been elected on the first vote.
In fact, Kawczynski, Pritchard and Dunne would probably have lost under AV.
No wonder they are the loudest advocates of FPTP!
Shrewsbury – Kawczynski (Tory) won with 37.7%
Wrekin – Pritchard (Labour) won with 41.9%
Ludlow – Dunne (Tory) won with 45.1%
Telford – Wright (Labour) won with 48.3%
Shrops North – Paterson (Tory) won with 49.6%
Report abuse
Simplistic and flawed argument Richard. Elections as they stand bear no comparison to the sporting analogy. In an election with five candidates someone can potentially win with only 21% of the vote. In an election with ten candidates potentially 11% could be the winning margin. This you have to admit is clearly grossly unfair. I’m not wholly convinced with first past the post when an MP or a party can be elected time and time again based on the loyalty of core support even if that makes up a minority of the electorate in a constituency. That some MPs fear a change is because they know they are at risk of being not being re-elected.
Most in this country vote centre left and as such the Conservatives are vulnerable. Labour and Lib Dem voters are likely to second choice each other. Fringe parties will remain on the fringe as few will nominate them as second choice. That is why the Conservatives and right wing fringe parties are anti AV…they’ll lose out.
Report abuse
if a candidate wants to gain 50% of the vote in round one, then he/she will have to work hard for their constituents. that effectivly means round 2 votes will not count
There are far too many lazy MPs in safe seats that do nothing for a great privlage.
The dinosaurs at westminster need waking up and I will be giving a great big thumbs up to AV come the referendum and voting YES!
Report abuse
Can’t see anything wrong with a change. At present it’s quite possible for a party with 40% of the vote to govern and impose very party-centric policies on the country. This way every vote counts and the worse excesses of any party, regardless of whether they are left or right wing are reeled in as it requires consensus. Would think it would be more likely to get people out voting too as their vote is more likely to make a difference
Report abuse
I totally agree, our MP would never have been reelected had the AV been used. This is an MP who spends most of his time in Northern Ireland and is not very good at solving issues involving his constituents, and simply pen pushes and does a very poor job as it is! Had AV been in then we would have had a LOCAL MP not one who is now in NI and one who cares about the LOCAL AREA since they live here! AV is all good if you ask me!
AV is the only way we as joe public can make a difference!
Report abuse
theyre all scared because they all have “safe” seats depsite all being unpopular with the majority of their constituants
Report abuse
A Change in the voting system is long over due. AV Despite some flaws (Mostly concerning the competency of the voter!)offers to re-engage the waining electorate which can only benefit the legitmacy of how we are governed.I believe that the AV system has proven itself in countries such as Australia and Germany when you consider th effects of the credit crunch on their economies in comparison with ours in regard of respective economic policies.AV requires consenual governance ,pragmatic policy making in essence the conservative principles for a sound government.MP’s should work harder to serve their electorate no seat should be a safe seat.
Report abuse
im in favor of AV,in fact im a big fan because for me its the best of both worlds you get the consituency MP like with FPTP but with a bit more proportionally, so its better than PR, its a good system i think because it will make more people vote because now your vote will count you wont just have loads of safe seats where MPs are guarenteed a job for life
Report abuse
sorry dont agree
yes to change, yes to keeping MPs on their toes, yes to more moderate governments, yes to no more safe seats, yes to fairer votes
yes 2 AV
Report abuse
Not so a considerable number of seats are safe because one party or the other always gets more than 50% of the votes, AV will do nothing about that so those seats will remain safe under the AV system.
Out of 45 million people eligible to vote only 15 million bothered to do so, there is nothing to show that changing the voting system would attract the other 30 milion to the voting booth.
It is the polcies and the clear impression that nothing ever changes no matter who is in power at Westminter which is the problem.
Introducing a system where the person most did not want to be their MP gains the seat and where government and polices are decided by the political parties after the election in sectret deals, is not going to do anything but make matters worse by entrenching an already failing system and putting even more power in the hands of the party leaders.
Report abuse
I agree with anything that makes voting more interactive and interesting for voters and will encourage more people out to vote. Say Yes to AV.
Report abuse
I’m all for First Past the Post.
The Post being 50% of the constituency’s electorate.
That’s why I support AV.
Report abuse
What a farcical situation we are in that those who want electoral reform are only given the worst possible option to vote upon. Because AV is obviously unworkable the result of this referendum is a forgone conclusion.
The Lib Dems have been well and truly conned by Cameron. By the time they realise that they have been totally hoodwinked the coalition will be in collapse along with the Lib Dem vote and the Tories will be in pole position to walk away with the next election.
To be honest it beggars belief that the Lib Dems have been so stupid – again!
Report abuse
A vote for AV will mean no more MP’s having jobs for life. It’s has simple as that. If a person in our area shows that they are the right one for election then under AV they will be first every time to get over 50% it’s rubbish to say AV will get the wrong person elected. Without question the right person under AV will get the job and will know unless they do a great job while in office they will be out come the second turm in office.
Report abuse