On the campaign trail: Lest we forget...

It's been a busy day on the trail, with the launch of our 'Ad-Van' trailing across South Wales today spreading the message of Labour's disastrous economic mismanagement in recent years.

It's amazing how Dear Mr Prudence's reputation slipped as it became clear just what a mess Labour had made of the economy. This is something that we'll be hammering home throughout the campaign...

Labour are wallowing in denial and both Ed Millibland (sic) and Carwyn Jones are yet to explain how they will tackle the deficit. Until they do so they will remain bereft of any economic credibility!

(On Barry waterfront this morning @ the launch of the Ad campaign)

After 12 long years of Labour governments, at both Westminster and here in Wales, our country remains the poorest nation in the UK - with Labour's profligacy having brought the UK to the very brink of bankruptcy. We cannot let them get away with their attempts to distance themselves from the mess in which we find the economy, opposing the difficult decisions being taken to reduce the deficit with neither sensible alternative nor constructive suggestion...

Lest we forget. This is Labour's legacy to Wales, indeed to the whole of the United Kingdom.

£120 million a day on debt interest!

The Case Against AV

I should start by making it clear that I am in favour of retaining First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) for use at Westminster elections. It not only makes strong majority governments much more likely, the cyclical nature of politics itself allies well with FPTP to force parties to reach out to as much of the population as possible to regain power. This is as good for political discourse itself as it is for democracy…

In recent years under David Cameron the Conservatives have been forced to recognise that shouting, however passionately, at our core supporters wasn’t going to influence and enthuse Mr Undecided; never mind the downright sceptic. The same process of modernisation was undertaken by Labour in the late 1980s when they finally realised that the unemployed of the era were more interested in jobs than in the campaign for nuclear disarmament. If a system of PR had existed in that period then it is highly unlikely that this process of intellectual regeneration would have been necessary at all; more likely, a pre-election telephone call to the Liberals and the offer of a couple of choice Ministerial positions. That’s not the kind of democracy I’m after.

Whatever the merits of Alternative Vote, it is certainly not more ‘fair’ than the current system:

It breaks the fundamental principle of one person, one vote and accords undue significance to the preference votes of less popular candidates. This is because if you vote for a mainstream candidate who comes top of the ballot after the first round of counting, your other preferences will never be taken into consideration. However, for people who vote for a fringe party that gets eliminated, their preferences will be counted; effectively giving them two, sometimes three, bites at the cherry…

A perfect example of this is the recent Labour leadership contest. Here David Milliband led the early rounds of voting, before being defeated due to the transference of votes from the least popular candidates as they were eliminated. Eventually, after leading comfortably for three rounds, he was defeated his younger sibling (who limped home by virtue of being the least unpopular candidate in the race). Inspirational!

The introduction of AV would make tactical voting more likely, with parties issuing instructions on how best to prevent candidate X from winning. This grubby phenomenon is commonplace in elections run using AV and leads to exceptionally negative campaigning.

Under AV, those voters whose first choice is Labour or Lib Dem might well be expected, broadly speaking, to give their preference votes to each other; in this way it becomes eminently possible that tactical voting could lead to a situation where one party gets the most first choice votes, and yet gain a vastly inferior number of seats at Westminster. Surely it is not desirable to move to a system that encourages an emphasis on electing the ‘least-disliked’ candidate, and not the most popular?

Neither is AV necessarily more proportional than the current system:

It is capable of unpredictable results, occasionally exaggerating the popular mood, although it usually makes a hung parliament more likely. Having said that, AV is by no means proportional. At the Australian General Election last year the leading parties won far more seats in the House of Representatives under AV than justified by their share of the vote; Labor taking 48% of the seats with 37.9% of the vote, and the Greens 0.7% of the seats with 11.5% of the vote.

In any case, ‘proportionality’ in this context is a rather narrowly defined concept. Of course, under FPTP 10% of the vote doesn’t necessarily equate to 10% of the seats. It does, though, make it less likely that marginal parties can hold disproportionate power and influence in choosing our government during the negotiations that follow. With any move towards a system in the UK that makes coalitions probable, comes the likelihood that the leader of the Liberal Democrats becomes de-facto Kingmaker. That might not be so appealing to those who opted for the Liberals last year because of their pledge not to increase tuition fees. Unfortunately, the politics of coalition blur the lines of accountability somewhat; manifesto pledges are bound to be lost amidst the backroom compromises that constitutes negotiation.

Alternative Vote is not just unpopular, it is complicated and expensive:

It is often misleadingly argued that the introduction of AV would inevitably lead to increased turnout at General Elections; as if merely changing the way in which we vote for our politicians would undo the damage done by the expenses scandal and bridge the disconnection that has emerged between the electorate and a political class that they increasingly see as ‘out of touch’.

Of course we need to consider ways to improve public engagement with politics, particularly amongst the young, but this isn’t going to be achieved with the introduction of AV. In fact, voter turnout in Australia decreased so significantly following the introduction of AV that they had to make it illegal not to vote! This is an unloved system that is used by just three countries in the world.

AV is also exceptionally complicated, and the Australian experience has shown that the likelihood of a spoiled ballot 5 times more likely where it has been introduced following FPTP. If we think back to the fury of voters in Sheffield who were left unable to vote at last year’s general election, are we really sure that increasing the number of disenfranchised voters is the way to restore faith in the political system?

It will also lead to councils being required to spend more educating the electorate and introducing the equipment required to count the vote. Is spending £90 million and five months debating a system that no one actually wants the best way to engage public interest in politics- when councils are being forced to make bold savings due to the financial crisis.

It is vital that the debate on electoral reform rises above party politics, otherwise it not only undermines the arguments of all sides; it becomes a popularity contest. There is a case to be made to look at alternative voting systems and, while I don’t personally share the view, there are passionate and logical arguments put forward for genuinely proportional systems. AV is not one of them. This will be the last chance for a decade to make the case for electoral reform and anyone serious about changing would be unwise to waste it on this politicians’ fix.

Fundamentally, my main objection to the proposed new system is that, prior to the General Election in May of last year, not even the most passionate advocates of electoral reform had ever made the case for AV. It is an obscure, hugely complicated and largely unloved compromise – deemed fit for purpose in just three countries across the world. It is not the panacea, and it will not address the disconnection that currently exists between the public and the politicians.

Instead, at great cost, increased complication and with very little enthusiasm you are being asked to vote for what Nick Clegg called “a miserable little compromise”; a system that even Roy Jenkins declared to be “even more unfair and disproportionate” than the one currently in use.

For these reasons, and more, I would urge you (no, implore you) to vote NO!

Public Health Matters...

As the old saying goes, prevention is better than cure. Yet too often the need to prevent people falling ill or developing medical conditions comes second to the acute needs of those already suffering. As health budgets have been placed under enormous pressure in recent years and with increasing demands on our hospitals, the rise in the number of public health crises – such as obesity, smoking and sexually transmitted diseases - continues to go unchecked.

In these times of economic austerity, savings are being sought in every corner of the NHS in Wales as Edwina Hart and her officials take £435 million out of the NHS before the end of this financial year. But what’s the true price of Labour’s legacy to Wales and who pays for it?

With the cost of alcohol misuse in Wales at around £70-85 million and with around 1,000 deaths attributable to alcohol per year in Wales, the cost of the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG)’s ineffective policy is all too apparent. Instead of investing in tackling the root causes of alcohol misuse, the Health Minister continues to rely on the dedication of health professionals to pick up the pieces at the frontline of A&E departments, at huge expense to the taxpayer.

While the Government thinks that introducing minimum pricing on alcohol may possibly curb the incidence of drunken anti-social behaviour in the short term, it is merely the plaster that covers the bullet wound whilst penalising moderate consumers.

WAG’s approach to public health matters in Wales has been found wanting. The Labour/Plaid Coalition Government is haemorrhaging money while the statistics continue to rise. With the astronomical rise in diagnoses of sexually transmitted infections, a decade of a Labour-led government has little to show for its efforts. By 2025, around 225,000 people will have been diagnosed with diabetes; that’s over 7 per cent of the Welsh population. Unless we address these lifestyle issues underlying our public health crises, health inequalities will continue to expand meaning you are likely to live longer if you live in the Vale of Glamorgan than in the Rhondda Valley.

By refusing to protect NHS funding in Wales in real terms, the WAG is playing Russian roulette with the health of the Welsh nation.

Can we afford not to protect health spending? Simply put, the answer is no.

It’s time for a change. Not another health reorganisation. Two restructures of the NHS in Wales at a cost of more than £30 million is quite enough waste. No, what we need is a broader focus. We need a longer term view of the challenges facing Wales. We need a more holistic approach that uses the talents of health and social care professionals more effectively. We want better cohesion of services so that the focus is on prevention rather than cure. We want a wholesale change in our health behaviour.

The Welsh Conservatives are committed to getting it right now so that future generations don’t ultimately foot the bill.