NPF Elections: Chris Hughes

With the elections to Labour’s National Policy Forum in full swing, the Young Fabians Blog got in touch with all the candidates competing for the position of Youth Representative to learn more about what the NPF means to them, and what sort of policies young people across the country want to be introduced when Labour next enters government.

Chris Hughes, candidate for NPF Youth Representative, North West: 

For me, and lots of other Young Labour members, the National Policy Forum has been a group of people that have been completely disengaged from us. If I had a penny for every time someone in the past week or so has asked ‘What the hell is the NPF?!”…

I’ve seen the effect that the National Policy Forum has had on Constituency Labour Parties all over the North West. It has given CLPs a real tool to engage with the membership in a way that asking them to come and campaign in the rain could never do. Ordinary members could come along to a Policy Forum on any given policy area and have their say without having to build up the courage to stand up in front of a full room and express an opinion.

Sadly though, these policy forum type events have been few and far between, to say the least, for Young Labour members.

In the past, the Youth Representative has been elected to the National Policy Forum by standing as part of a slate dubbed ‘left’ or ‘right’ wing and receiving thousands of votes from members they wouldn’t even be representing. Now, however, only Young Labour members can vote for the Youth Rep. Now, whoever is elected is going to have to actually work.

The NPF needs to open up numerous channels both online and offline for young members to express their ideas. I want Young Labour members to feel comfortable and confident in expressing their view and vision of where the Labour Party is going.

I’d also like to try and arrange a policy workshop for Young Labour members at North West Young Labour conference. I’m proud to be Chair of Young Labour here in the North West, but we seriously lack any policy discussion at our conferences. I feel that this is essential for a conference at any level of the Party.

I think that for Young Labour members to actually feel engaged with Labour’s policy process, they have to be consulted on the policy that will actually affect their lives. During my campaign, I’ve asked lots of Young Labour members and lots of young Trade Unionists what their top policy priority is at the moment. Typical responses I got back was on things like ending legal loan sharking, equal marriage, a National Living Wage, and votes at 16.

I think by changing the way the National Policy Forum works with Young Labour, and other groups such as LGBT Labour and Labour Women’s Forum, we can actually produce policy that comes straight from the grassroots of the Party.

Chris Hughes is a candidate for NPF Youth Representative, North West

The Young Fabians do not endorse any of the candidates for the position of NPF Youth Representative 

A new approach to public health

How much do the government and the market affect people’s ability to pursue a healthier life? In this Guest Post, Amrit Caleyachetty says ‘not enough.’

The Conservatives generally think that the answer is not much.  Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, believes that reducing nutrition-related chronic diseases such as obesity, coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cancer, can be achieved by individuals taking personal responsibility to eat less and move more.

In the UK, socioeconomic inequalities in avoidable illness and premature deaths for chronic diseases are directly attributable to socioeconomic differences in dietary patterns.  Research has demonstrated that lower income households generally consume more calorific, nutrient-poor foods and drinks compared to more affluent households, which are more likely to subsist on a diet of healthy fruits and vegetables, whole grains, lean meats and fish. Therefore, belonging to a lower socioeconomic group carries with it a greater likelihood of becoming overweight and obese.

At a time when Labour is thinking about developing progressive policies in the context of there being less money to spend, reducing the burden of NHS healthcare spending is an important consideration. Last summer, The Lancet reported that if the current obesity trends continue into the future, by 2030 there will be approximately 8.5 million incident cases of diabetes mellitus, 7.3 million incident cases of cardiovascular disease and more than half a million new cancer cases, with treatment costs approximately £2 billion per year.

The food and drinks industry’s response to this has a sense of déjà vu. The tobacco industry systematically undermined tobacco control policies, claiming that increasing the price of tobacco via taxation was regressive and that regulating tobacco interfered with individual freedoms. They aggressively lobbied government to endorse a policy whereby the industry would regulate itself free from state constraints. The current government has mollycoddled the food and drinks industry, suggesting that it will not let widening social inequalities in health frustrate big business’ pursuit of profits.

In upholding commercial interests over the public’s health, the Conservatives are at least consistent with their ideology. However, this does not mean Labour can be too pleased with its own record. The party failed to recognise that an unfettered market combined with loose government oversight was a recipe for enduring social inequalities in chronic diseases. When Labour left office, a sign of this unhealthy relationship was that 40 of England’s 170 NHS trusts had signed long term commercial leases to fast food restaurants and high-street coffee shops.

Reform is desperately needed to prevent an obesity epidemic in the future. An unhealthy food tax should be introduced, alongside marketing regulations that restrict advertising to children and put an end to confusing food labelling. The Institute of Fiscal Studies has recommended that rather than taxing fats and sugars, unhealthy snacks should be targeted with exemptions for products that meet certain threshold nutritional requirements. This would shift food purchasing behaviour towards healthier foods and encourage the snack industry to produce healthier products.

Given many low-to-middle income households are understandably wary of food price increases, a food tax may be considered regressive since individuals on lower incomes generally spend proportionally more of their income on food, purchasing more energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods than relatively affluent individuals. However, a tax aimed at unhealthy snack food and drinks combined with subsidies for fruit and vegetables or improving the nutrition of school meals, would not be regressive as there would be a range of cheap, healthier alternatives. Furthermore, a reduction in the consumption of less healthy foods would decrease the proportion of individuals with lower socioeconomic position suffering from nutrition-related chronic diseases.

Labour’s new generation cannot see the problems it sees and not try to change it approach to public health. There will be fierce opposition to any effective policies that aim to rebalance industry interests. But this is the time to find the spirit of past public health movements which responded to the widespread health problems created by rapid industrialization.

We must make the argument that effective government action to reduce inequalities in chronic disease is a pro-health and pro-economic choice. If public health is defined as what we, as a society, do to assure the conditions for all to be healthy, then clearly we have not done enough.

Amrit Caleyachetty is a member of the Young Fabians

Ways out for ‘Workfare’

In this post, Young Fabians member Daniel Craw explores a possible solution to the current ‘workfare’ scandal

This week several objections to the government’s Work Programme have been bandied about. This wheeze gives job seekers an unpaid work experience placement. If they drop out then they lose their benefits.

I don’t want to get into the philosophical arguments about whether the principle behind losing benefits is right or wrong; the way the Coalition sees it is that if you get Job Seekers Allowance (JSA), you don’t get it for free so you’re expected to take work that is given to you. I should imagine Labour would broadly agree.

Instead I want to look at the relative merits of these objections to the Work Programme and suggest that it could be resolved by actually paying people.

Here are the objections outlined in this article by ‘The Guardian’:

1. There are “complaints that jobseekers are being used as taxpayer-subsidised labour”. I’m not sure whose complaints the Guardian are referring to here, but I don’t think it’s the same majority of public opinion who support welfare reform and oppose taxpayer-subsidised indolence. If we’re going to have subsidies, it’s probably better that they support labour.
2. Private sector employers get to profit from the unemployed. Surprisingly (to me), until recently only public sector and charity organisations took people on under the programme. Having the private sector involved is surely essential: if you want the private sector to deliver economic growth you have to prepare the unemployed to fill private sector jobs – whenever they actually get created. However, it does look a bit shabby if corporations are using free labour as a way to enrich themselves. You might call it ‘predatory capitalism’.
3. It’s not actually voluntary if people lose their benefits. Tesco feels uncomfortable with the work experience being compulsory and sold as voluntary (Employment Minister Chris Grayling: “Our work experience scheme is voluntary”) and suggests removing the threat of benefit withdrawal. Without wishing to get into a discussion of whether there should be unconditional social security, my interpretation of JSA is that when you sign on you accept its conditions, and you are therefore compelled to take work experience.
4. It’s slave labour. If you help out an organisation for free because you enjoy doing so and you agree with its objectives and it was entirely your decision to do so, then it’s voluntary. If the activity is anything else – and especially if it was arranged by the JobCentre or whichever contractor is doing it in your area – then it’s work, and you should expect to be paid at least the National Minimum Wage for it. If an unscrupulous retailer finds that they’re able to get a kid on JSA to perform a menial job that requires no training for free rather than actually employ someone then that does nothing for the unemployment rate and undermines the concept of the minimum wage.

What I don’t understand is why people on the Work Programme do not get their benefit topped up to the minimum wage by the employer for the work they do. I think this solution would address all the objections we’ve heard:

1. Taxpayer’s money is still used to subsidise work not indolence
2. Employers still get benefits but not at the benefit recipient’s expense
3. With the minimum wage carrot now complementing the stick of losing benefits, the scheme would still be compulsory, but the DWP would not lose any more friends by saying so – to suggest that the current system is otherwise is disingenuous
4. While it may still be forced, it isn’t slave labour

There is an issue in that economic theory suggests that you won’t get as many placements as you do under the scheme to date, but at least participating companies won’t be embarrassed into withdrawing completely, thus reducing the number of placements anyway.

Daniel Craw is a Young Fabians member

Eye on Washington: Colbert and the Super PACS

In a new series of articles, Young Fabian member Alex Adranghi brings us the highlights from the 2012 US Presidential Election Race.

We’ve seen intriguing developments in the past week concerning the greatest non-candidate of the Republican presidential primaries, satirist Stephen Colbert.

Real-life Democrat Colbert, host of fake right-wing news show ‘The Colbert Report’, has been poking fun at federal laws concerning the funding of political campaigns.

While donations to candidates’ campaigns are regulated, two recent federal rulings have encouraged the rise of the so-called ‘Super Political Action Committees’ or ‘Super PACs’. These allow corporations to raise unlimited funds to campaign in support of a candidate- without the need for there to be regulated coordination between the actions of the ‘Super PACs’ and those of the official campaign itself.

What may seem bizarre to the British is that this ‘freedom’ stems from a 19^th century ruling of the Supreme Court which counts corporations as individuals in terms of freedom of expression. The ruling prohibits infringement on their ‘free speech.’ The power of corporations over elections was further reinforced in a 1976 ruling, which formally equated money with ‘free speech’.

Last week a poll in South Carolina placed Colbert at five percent, ahead of major candidate Jon Huntsman who subsequently dropped out of the running at the weekend. This led to Colbert’s announcement that he was exploring entering the race in South Carolina, placing his own ‘Super PAC’ into the hands of fellow satirist- and ‘Daily Show’ host- John Stewart.

This ‘Super PAC’ has already launched TV adverts in South Carolina portraying race leader Mitt Romney as a serial killer. This mocks the notion of corporations equalling people in terms of freedom of speech, using Romney’s career as a successful management consultant (where he liquidated troubled companies) to illustrate the point.

With no option in South Carolina to write-in names on the ballot, on Monday Colbert called for those who support him to place a vote for ex-contender Herman Cain who is ironically still on the ballot paper.

With wild media coverage of the faux possible candidacy, comes the real possibility of a ‘Colbert Effect’. There is speculation that Colbert could hurt libertarian Ron Paul due to their mutual appeal to younger independent voters.

We’ll just have to see if a protest vote materialises this Saturday.

Alex Adranghi is a member of the Young Fabians

Blueprint for a New Economy

In this Guest Post, Bren Albiston, a member of the Young Fabian Renewing and Reforming Our Economy Policy Commission, explores the ways in which we can change the way the country does business.

We have a big decision to make as to what future we want for this country.

Do we want to continue ever further down the road of an economic system that rewards rent-seeking more than productivity? Do we want to sustain an unfair system that generates friction between the Square Mile and the rest of the economy?

No. We can, and need to, improve this sorry state of affairs.

We have to grow our economy at more than 3% a year until 2035 in order to make up the losses incurred from the double-whammy of the credit crunch and recession. If we fail, we will lose something in the order of £4 trillion of productivity* . The task may seem insurmountable, but we must work to secure as much of that 4 trillion as we can.

Our capitalism is broken. This has been made clear by years of recession and static growth. We continue to pay the price of other people’s hubris; those who thought they could predict the unpredictable.

Despite this, we are still over-reliant on a financial system that is too cautious to invest. At the same time, the government is scaling back the public sector, our most potent means of inducing social mobility. We must reinvent the way we do business and the way that we create and encourage growth, not just because we need to recover economically, but because we need to recover socially as well.

Britain should not be afraid of taking the lead in reform. There are many ways in which the nation could change the way it does business. The establishment of a properly funded and empowered ‘Green’ investment bank is one option. As Will Hutton suggests, we should explore the benefits of a ‘Knowledge Bank’, a ‘Life Sciences Bank’ and perhaps a ‘National Infrastructure Bank’.

Through these institutions, we can invest in the technologies and expertise required to rebuild our economy. A new lending infrastructure will incentivise innovation, while benefiting traditional funding streams at the same time.

The new system would channel funds to those areas that are thought to be risky bets by orthodox lenders. However, it would need the backing of the state to succeed. It alone can provide the security and effective strategic direction needed, alongside a highly autonomous set of investment apparatus to keep its influence in check.

Fairness and just desserts should be the foundation stones of our new capitalism. In many ways, small business does more for this country than big business. At present, we neglect the small- and medium-sized businesses and leave them exposed to the predatory practices of our largest firms.

These giants operate largely unchallenged by both smaller competitors and government watchdogs. A study in 2005 revealed that the more competing firms were matched in terms of performance and productivity, the more they tended to register new patents** . We need a competition framework that actively promotes competition rather than protecting incumbent corporations.

Unfortunately, the balance between today’s consumers and tomorrow’s is too heavily in favour of the former. In consequence, there is little room for innovation and even less for emerging companies to replace those which are uncompetitive. We need an infrastructure capable of sustaining new corporate growth and innovation.

Britain is, in many respects, a world-leader in high technology and services. Yet as our manufacturing sector continues to decline, we remain over-reliant on financial institutions as the engines of growth. As the state retreats from its key role in encouraging social mobility, we are faced with a huge task: we need to reconstruct our capitalism to benefit society, and we need new institutions to help us do that.

• You can learn more about what the ‘Renewing and Reforming Our Economy’ Policy Commission has been doing by clicking here.

* H.M Treasury (2009) Pre-Budget Report: Securing the Recovery: Growth and Opportunity, HMSO. See Also: Will Hutton (2010) Them and Us. Little, Brown.

** Phillippe Aghion, Richard Blundell, Rachel Griffith, Peter Howitt and Susan Prantl (2005) ‘The Effects of Entry on incumbent Innovation and Productivity’, CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP5323.

Labour in the World – Reflections on the Arab Spring

In this guest post, Debbie Moss, Chair of the Young Fabian Labour in the World Policy Commission, reflects on our webchat with young Egyptian activist Hannan Abdalla.

On Tuesday, the Young Fabian Labour and the World Policy Commission held a web chat with a young British-born Egyptian activist, Hanan Abdalla.  When the Cairo uprising began Hanan took a break from her career as a film-maker to support her compatriots in transforming their nation.  She has since been charting progress in the region via Twitter, amongst other media.

In a week which has seen the world transfixed by the apparently imminent demise of Gadaffi at the hands of NATO-backed rebels, Hanan offered a fascinating perspective on events in the Arab World, focussing on social media, the role of the young generation, prospects for future stability and the role of the West.

We in the West inevitably experience world events through the prism of our predominantly inward-looking media outlets.  When a foreign dictator’s power comes under threat our thoughts quickly turn to the domestic political implications and the impact on our national self-interest.  Hanan’s responses were particularly refreshing because of her focus on the lives of people living in the Arab world.  This was encapsulated in her opening remark: “What’s been happening in Libya has been exceptionally moving and for me serves as a real testament to the strength of the will of a people and how they will stop at nothing for change.”

Predictably, Young Fabian members wanted to know about young people and social media.  Yet Hanan cautioned against the temptation evident in much of the Western media  to view technological advance as the cause of revolution, rather than a means of organising against anachronistic regimes. The “sexier” aspects of recent events have received disproportionate attention, detracting from other, more significant aspects.

Similarly, our focus on speculation that the Muslim Brotherhood could gain power was challenged.  Western fear of the potential rise of extremist Islamic groups distracts the world’s attention from the more immediate enemies of human rights – in this case the Egyptian army, supported, Hanan emphasised – by the United States, Saudi Arabia and Israel.  These uprising do not just challenge rulers – but global power structures.

And what of the role of the West? First of all, we should remember that it’s not all about us.  The uprisings were initiated by and remain the property of oppressed peoples forging a new political and social path.  But recent events, especially in Libya, do have significance for NATO and the international community, providing an opportunity to rehabilitate the doctrine of “liberal interventionism” and free it from the legacy of Iraq.

The Labour Party and all those who believe in progressive foreign policy should, all being well, draw on this to articulate a new formula for future interventions abroad.

Debbie Moss is Chair of the Young Fabian Labour in the World Policy Commission.

• Replay the webchat with Hannan Abdalla here. Find out more about the Young Fabian Policy Commissions here.

Guest post: The British prime ministership and the Murdoch press since 1997

In this guest post, Dr. Nicholas Allen examines the influence of the Murdoch press on British prime ministers since 1997.

Rupert Murdoch’s appearance before the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport committee on 17 July was a riveting affair. It was, he said, ‘the most humble day of my life’. It was also a day when the public learned that Murdoch had often entered Number 10 through the back door when visiting—because he had been asked to by its occupants. The question that prompted that admission was indicative of the concern felt by many about Murdoch’s relationships with successive prime ministers. His access to Messrs Blair, Brown and Cameron and their attempts to curry his newspapers’ favour have been portrayed in some quarters as evidence of excessive influence. Confirmation of his back-door comings and goings only added to the sense of his behind-the-scenes power in British public life.

The reality is probably somewhat different. No-one can deny the importance of news management to the prime ministership. As head of government, the prime minister is ultimately responsible for selling the record of his or her government to the voters and ensuring a supportive press. Blair must have been thoroughly grateful for the Sun and The Times’ support for the invasion of Iraq, for instance. Yet, at the same time, prime ministers need to be mindful of what all newspapers are saying- especially in the run-up to an election. Press coverage in the round also matters to prime ministers on a more personal level. The tenor of press coverage will affect his or her prestige and standing in the eyes of senior colleagues.

It almost goes without saying that the importance of press coverage in general undermines the importance of one man’s newspapers. The Murdoch press operates in a competitive market, and their influence on public opinion is limited. Prime ministers and their advisers almost certainly know this. Of course, some newspapers matter more than others. Murdoch’s newspapers are especially important in British politics because of their high circulation figures and because of their unpredictability. Titles whose political support can be taken for granted may find themselves taken for granted by prime ministers. Titles whose support is shallow or conditional will almost inevitably be treated differently. The Times and especially the Sun enjoy large readerships, and they have shown themselves to be conditional in their support for political parties. It is not surprising that they have been courted.

The Sun, in particular, has a near-mythical status in British politics. There is little evidence to support the claim that it was the Sun ‘wot won it’ for the Tories in 1992, yet many politicians still regard the Sun’s endorsement as a necessary step on the path to power. In July 1995, Tony Blair took the bold move for a Labour leader to travel to Australia to deliver a speech to News Corp executives. Reflecting on the trip in his memoirs, Blair wryly observes:

‘the country’s most powerful newspaper proprietor, whose publications have hitherto been rancorous in their opposition to the Labour Party, invites us into the lion’s den. You go, don’t you?’

Brown for his part was reportedly determined to have the backing of the Murdoch press when he succeeded Blair, and Cameron must have been delighted to obtain the Sun’s backing in 2009 (not that it won him a majority in 2010). In all cases, however, there is no evidence that policies were radically altered contrary to a prime minister’s preferences out of consideration for the Murdoch press.

Moreover, while Blair’s trip to Australia was the most memorable effort of any British party leader to woo a newspaper proprietor, both he and his successors have assiduously courted other newspaper owners and editors. Blair was determined to win over as much of the right-wing press as possible; he read a lesson at the funeral of Lord Rothermere, the owner of the Mail, and he invited Richard Desmond, owner of the Express, to tea. Gordon Brown and David Cameron have also continued the tradition of meeting owners and editors of various newspapers when they can. In this sense the friendliness shown towards the Murdoch press is hardly exceptional. (The fact that no prime minister enjoys the unconditional support of a newspaper might be taken as evidence that the effort expended is never worth the outcome.)

In truth, concerns about Murdoch’s and his newspapers’ hold on the prime ministership are wide of the mark. Amongst proprietors, Murdoch does not enjoy an exclusive access to Number 10, and all newspapers are, to varying degrees, wooed by the prime minister and his advisers. Instead, such concerns probably have more to do with Murdoch’s ‘bogeyman’ reputation, especially among those on the left, than with his actual power.

His newspapers have not, by themselves, empowered or disempowered the British prime ministership. Recent events have also shown his own power to be somewhat more illusory than many once supposed.

Dr. Nicholas Allen is Lecturer in Politics at the Royal Holloway University of London

Is Britain constitutionally challenged?

In this guest post, Shadow Justice Secretary Sadiq Khan MP, sets the scene for a speech he will give tomorrow on the British constitution at a joint Young Fabians/Society of Labour Lawyers event in London.

Labour’s 13 years in power were a period of major constitutional change for Britain – devolution for Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and London; introduction of the Human Rights Act and the Freedom of Information Act, creation of a Supreme Court; separation of the senior judiciary from our second chamber; and the removal of all but 92 hereditary peers from the House of Lords. The list goes on.

But while our record stands tall, I also recognise that we left some areas of constitutional change unfinished.

We’re now faced with a government who are playing with our constitution in a way which is not in the nation’s best interests, but is simply about preserving the harmony of the coalition.

Parliament length is being fixed at five years, boundaries are being re-drawn and the number of MPs reduced by 50 – all to favour one, or both, of the coalition partners, riding roughshod over our constitution. Other issues which are contentious between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have been kicked into the long-grass – again, to ensure harmony within the government rather than what is in the country’s best interests.

Our constitution deserves better than changes made simply to satisfy the short-term, partisan needs of this coalition.

A future Labour Government will be left with the challenge of putting the pieces back together and restoring public confidence in our constitution. But we must also continue the modernisation of our democratic structures that we started when in power – looking at improving and widening participation in democracy, devolving of power and whether the country might be better served by a written constitution.

Rt. Hon Sadiq Khan MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Justice (with special responsibility for constitutional reform)

Put money where your mouth is, Mr Mitchell

In this Member Post, Lola Okolosie, writes about the challenges which remain for the gender equality agenda, despite the launch of UN Women.

UN Women. Never heard of it? Well, that is not altogether a surprise. News of its launch was lost amidst coverage of the North African political uprisings. In the month in which we celebrate 100 years of International Woman’s Day, it seems apt, then, to remind people of this little known organization.

Set up to ‘champion’ equality for women on the global stage, its remit encompasses tackling violence against women; advocating for female involvement in politics and making the economic argument for women’s equality. In the Asia Pacific region alone, it is estimated $40 billion is lost each year as a result of women’s limited access to employment. These statistics remind us of the urgency with which the issues linked to gender equality, in an age of ever increasing globalization, are a serious concern for all.

UN Women replaces four smaller organizations, themselves hindered by poor funding. A lack of adequate financial support threatens to render this new body as ineffectual as its predecessors. Only a handful of the UN’s member nations have made core-funding commitments, both the UK and US governments remain conspicuous in their absence. Such inaction threatens to make the organization and its director, Michelle Bachelet, toothless lions, merely existing as representational mascots to gender equality.

In July 2010 International Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell, supported the setting up of the organization. Indeed, he was “relishing the opportunity to work with the single powerful agency which will have responsibility for promoting the rights of women across the world, and ensuring gender equality.” He qualified this by urging ‘UN [Women] to get started with delivering real change on the ground quickly.’

The question is, how can this be done when it faces a funding shortfall of £312 million?

Kathy Peach, Head of External Affairs at VSO UK welcomes Mitchell’s enthusiasm. However, for many gender equality campaigners, empty support is not enough. Peach argues that “it is now time for the Government to put funding behind its words and commit a minimum of £21 million in core annual funding to UN Women so it can start to deliver real change for millions of women.”

Over 400 events were held to mark the centenary of International Women’s Day and to celebrate what has been achieved in that time. The congratulatory tones of the last week must not lead us to forget one key fact: we are still a long way from winning the battle for women’s equality.

It’s time to put money where your mouth is, Mr Mitchell.

Listen to a podcast of a Young Fabian Women/One World Action joint panel discussion on UN Women by clicking here.

Countdown to AV

In this guest post, Martin Edobor, a member of the Young Fabian Science and Society Network, argues in favour of AV.

Next week Jeremy Corbyn MP will introduce the first UCL & King’s College Young Fabians AV Debate. This will give the Young Fabians a chance to reflect on the referendum, and think deeply about the implications voting reform may have on our political system. With the referendum a few months away, it is important that we have an open and frank debate, where individuals from both sides can put forward their argument.

For me a move towards an Alternative vote is a move towards a more progressive electoral system, in which the voice of the voter would be empowered. Under AV a prospective parliamentary candidate will need to gain at least 50% share of preference votes before they are elected. This gives parliamentarians a stronger mandate as public officials. It also avoids the situation in which MPs can be elected with less than half the overall share of the vote, which currently happens under the first past the post system.

AV would produce a result which is representative of the amount of votes cast. Therefore it a system that is fairer than first past the post.

If AV had been the electoral system used in the 2005 general election, Labour would have gained 8 more seats, the Liberal Democrats 9 more seats and the Conservatives would have dropped 15 seats (BBC). This needs to be clearly put forward to the public: an AV system is both more democratic and fairer than FPTP. In order for Britain to move towards a more modern democracy, we must begin by adopting a more progressive electoral system.