Labour cannot wish the AV debate away….

Mark Ferguson has a good post on LabourList speaking up for a third side to the AV debate; they may not be the most vocal but the ‘AV agnostics’ are probably the largest group within Labour. They are also likely to find themselves the subject of an awful lot of attention from both sides of the debate as time roles on because, as I have said, the simple truth is that whichever way Labour voters split will most likely determine the outcome of the AV Referendum. Mark’s central point; that Labour is ‘hopelessly divided’ over AV would be easily confirmed by anybody who even cast a casual glance at the Labour Twitterstream today.  Add onto that the 114 Labour MP’s who have today spoken out against AV and you can see this division clearly afflicts the Party at all levels.

It’s understandable on one level why comrades want to try and wish this away but with the stakes so high this simply can’t happen. Both sides are also passionately invested in their cause as well so not only can it not happen but it wont either. However, apart from that maybe we should pause for a moment and wonder whether it is right to want to forget about this.

As a Party I feel it would do us good to have a raucous debate. We have become far too timid; far too scared of sharp and, yes sometimes bitter debate, and this simply isn’t healthy when it comes to cultivating a democratic culture. Harsh debate and bitter polemic does not just light our collective way but it also makes us stronger and more united when a course is finally chartered. This has simply been forgotten and this is exactly why the electorate turned on us because, brutally, as far as they were concerned we became a dried out husk of a Party incapable of offering a uplifting vision to a nation that needed one.

A vigorous debate about AV which cuts to the chase of some fundamental issues (like, for example,  how we view our democracy and how we make it better) would go along way to dispel this view. Furthermore, the sight of comrades taking opposing views but, nonetheless, of course uniting to fight for Labour in the local and national elections would look very impressive indeed. It would show maturity but also that the contrarian spirit of a Party which should thrive on this is alive and kicking.

I make no apologies for opposing AV and I do so in the name of democracy. This pathetic reform shows what happens precisely when we leave reform to politicians and trust them to solve problems which they cannot possibly solve. No electoral system is perfect and the fact that the pro-AV camp pretends it is manna Nick Clegg rained from heaven by doing a deal with the devil should tell us all we need to know about its numerous and inexcusable imperfections. Furthermore, these comrades have abandoned the cause of real change, as was shown when the Liberal Democrats duly voted down an amendment calling for more options. Real, lasting democratic change will not arrive via this rotten plebiscite but will be won through the struggle of the growing anti-cuts/fees movement.

Labour as a Party should not be shy of this debate, if it wants to show the electorate it has changed and learnt from the General Election then rather than try and skirt round the issue it should plunge headlong into it with confidence it will safely emerge the other side.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , ,

About darrellgoodliffe

n.a

2 responses to “Labour cannot wish the AV debate away….”

  1. Alex Sobel says :

    This bit I agree with:

    ‘A vigorous debate about AV which cuts to the chase of some fundamental issues (like, for example, how we view our democracy and how we make it better) would go along way to dispel this view. Furthermore, the sight of comrades taking opposing views but, nonetheless, of course uniting to fight for Labour in the local and national elections would look very impressive indeed. It would show maturity but also that the contrarian spirit of a Party which should thrive on this is alive and kicking.’

    However I don’t think we need a bitter debate, I was in the bitter debate about Iraq it did far more damage than anything else in the last 20 years. Debate should be comradely and honest but not bitter, I think many of us fought the leadership election on the same side as you for mature and plural debate trying to leave bitter behind.

    Like

  2. darrellgoodliffe says :

    Alex,

    Sadly not enough damage hey because Iraq wasn’t stopped. Yes they did; for the kind of debate this leadership simply isnt allowing. I think a debate can be all three because I just mean ‘bitter’ as another word for an angular/sharp debate. Obviously, debates should not be personally bitter but I have no problem with hard-fought political bitterness.

    We fought for something it has not delivered as it has shown numerous times. Most notably in its treatment of Bob Ainsworth….

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: