Dylan Sharpe: Eastleigh shouldn't change Tory minds about AV

Dylan Sharpe is a political PR consultant. He was the Head of Press for the NO to AV campaign and a press officer on Boris Johnson’s 2008 Mayoral campaign. Follow Dylan on Twitter.

In the wake of UKIP's impressive second place at the Eastleigh by-election, several commentators have begun to ponder the merits of changing the voting system to suit the new electoral landscape. The 'Tories might have won with AV (the alternative vote)' argument has been floated a few times by people who ought to know better, as well as those looking to capitalise on Conservative jitters to push their own narrow agenda (e.g. the Electoral Reform Society).

Briefly ignoring the fact that the comprehensive 2011 referendum result demonstrated that the British public have absolutely no interest in seeing the voting system gerrymandered for short-term political gain, there are several other very good reasons why dredging up the recently deceased arguments for electoral reform are a red herring for the Conservative party.

Would the Conservatives have won Eastleigh under AV?

Put simply we can't be sure, but a cursory glance at Lord Ashcroft's fascinating Eastleigh exit polling, suggests that the result would have been unlikely to change under the alternative vote. As we enter the 72nd hour of Eastleigh post-game analysis it doesn't need repeating, but I will anyway: the reason the Liberal Democrats won the by-election is because they were better prepared and better organised (as well as having incumbency advantage), not because the voting system is broken.

Dylan Sharpe: Peter Oborne's "lessons" for Cameron from the US election are wide of the mark

Dylan Sharpe is a political PR consultant. He was the Head of Press for the NO to AV campaign and a press officer on Boris Johnson’s 2008 Mayoral campaign. Follow Dylan on Twitter.

Today Peter Oborne has used his Daily Telegraph column to extrapolate lessons for the Conservative Party from Barack Obama’s election success. A noted fan of David Cameron’s detoxification strategy, and never one to mince his words, Oborne proclaims that "victory for the Democrats is among the best news David Cameron has had since the formation of the Coalition more than two years ago". I contend that this, and the seven lessons he outlines in his piece, are wide of the mark.

"For the past two years, Conservative Right-wingers have been urging Mr Cameron to fight the next general election from a platform …involving a tough immigration policy, opposition to the European Union, a robust stance on law and order and a sharp shrinking of the state. Had the Republicans won, these Right-wingers would have claimed vindication."

Conservative right-wingers have indeed been arguing for greater focus on issues like the EU, immigration and crime, but not in isolation and more as a counterbalance for issues that are obvious turn offs for the electorate like Lords reform and international aid. You won’t find anyone serious arguing that David Cameron should abandon any talk of schools and hospitals. But polls show public opinion is in favour of stricter controls on immigration (which is indelibly linked to our membership of the European Union) and tougher attitudes to law and order.

"Mitt Romney had to pretend he was an ideological fanatic in order to win the Republicans’ support... This is exactly the dilemma David Cameron faces."

Dylan Sharp: We must be careful not to portray the countryside as opposed to growth

Dylan Sharpe is Head of Media Relations for the Countryside Alliance and the former Head of Press for the NO to AV campaign.

The Coalition’s well-meaning attempt to redesign Britain’s planning laws has, to date, succeeded in doing little more than angering all parties concerned. What should have been a relatively straightforward simplification of an onerous and roundly disliked 1200-page document, has turned into a protracted war pitting countryside groups against housing developers, with Conservative MPs being drawn hither and thither depending largely on where their constituency was located.

From the very start the green groups – chief among them the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the National Trust – have been strident in their opposition to the Government’s planning changes. In the course of that opposition it is fair to say that the new framework has often been misrepresented, with the words “concreting over the countryside” and “developer’s charter” all too common in quotes and position papers. The Government, however, cannot be totally absolved of blame. From Bob Neill’s claim of a “choreographed smear campaign by Left-wingers,” to Greg Clark accusing the opposition of “nihilistic selfishness,” throughout this entire saga the first recourse of both sides has been to hyperbole and aggression.

All of which is rather depressing for those caught in the middle. If you thought seeing Chris Huhne and Vince Cable sat around a Cabinet table with William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith was a strange coalition; on Saturday the Countryside Alliance partnered with Friends of the Earth, Shelter and the Town and Country Planning Association to call for a more reasoned and considered debate on planning, and one which didn’t pitch the countryside in opposition to economic growth. As has been the way in this fracas, our missive was to be outshone on Sunday by a letter signed by the likes of Liz Hurley and the brother of the Duchess of Cornwall, which placed the countryside in direct opposition to growth. It’s not who shouts louder in this debate, but who gets the celebs to shout for them.

Dylan Sharpe: Looking back six months ago at Britain's forgotten referendum

Dylan Sharpe was Head of Press for the NO to AV campaign

It is the plebiscite that we dare not speak of. The Voldemort of democratic referenda. Party conference season came and went and - but for a brief thanks from Baroness Warsi - the vote on the Alternative Vote was treated as if the unloved child from a sham marriage. For Clegg and Miliband the reason is obvious: both found themselves on completely the wrong side of the majority of the British public, with the latter also realising he was on the wrong side of the majority of his party. For Cameron, the reasoning is less clear. The AV referendum was a feather in the cap of the Conservative Campaigns Team and helped swell the council vote, a victory for bi-partisan cooperation in the pursuit of a higher ideal, and a superb reason to laud it over his rival party leaders. But then when one is trying to keep a coalition together…

Credit is therefore due to Lewis Baston, Ken Ritchie and BiteBack Publishing for having the gumption to produce a book on Britain’s forgotten referendum; and for the speed with which it has landed on the shelves. Lewis (the principal author) is a former director of research at the Electoral Reform Society, but chose not to get involved in the AV vote judging it to be a poor alternative to proportional representation and sensing danger in the genesis of the referendum deal.