Peter Smith is a retired Government PR professional, now lecturing in journalism, communications and politics at the University of Lincoln.
In less than a month we will be asked by the Government whether or not we want to keep the present first past the post voting system traditionally used for national and local elections, or switch to AV, the Alternative Vote system.
In the face of the continuing issues of cuts, NHS reforms, Libya, and the general wear-and-tear of coalition politics, the case for reform has been slow to find its way to the top of the news agenda.
Even now, it seems that the coverage – locally as well as nationally – is more about the political schisms than about the issues.
There are any numbers of campaigns running: for a Yes vote, No to AV, to scrap first past the post but for Proportional Representation (PR) rather than AV, and even a rogue Tory website in favour of change.
All of these have lined up heavyweight political support and a good smattering of celebrities and commentators to make their case.
Over the weekend the rhetoric has been stepped up and the points—scoring by the two main camps has obscured rather than clarified things. The problem is that both campaigns make essentially the same claim for their preferred voting system—more certainty, less likelihood of more coalitions, keeping the MP-constituency link etc., etc.
Voters are being urged to use the referendum to thwart the coalition but again each camp has a different take—many No supporters see the vote as a chance to drive a wedge between Cameron and Clegg, whilst many Yes campaigners see a change as being the best way to deny Cameron any chance of an outright majority in the future. So the differences are becoming more personal and increasingly about something other than a deep seated commitment to one particular electoral system.
As with the last national referendum, though there has been many local or regional referenda in the meantime, on Britain remaining in the EU (which wasn’t called the EU then, of course), there is no clear party divide on changing the system.
Most Tories, led from the front by David Cameron, are opposed to change and trenchant in their views on the perils of AV but the No campaign is chaired by former Labour Minister Margaret Beckett and has many prominent Labour politicians in its ranks. Which is a little odd as Labour was the only one of the main parties to go into the 2010 General Election with AV in its manifesto, neither Conservatives nor Liberal-Democrats were arguing the case a year ago.
Indeed, Nick Clegg, a passionate advocate of voting reform, had gone on record as describing AV as a “miserable little compromise“. Now he find himself now firmly in the Yes camp, to the extent that Ed Miliband has urged AV supporters to vote positively and not to turn May 6 into a “referendum on Nick Clegg”.
Well, the fact is a referendum on AV was part of the coalition agreement, so we have the rather odd spectacle of David Cameron agreeing to put something he doesn’t want to the country, in order to appease Nick Clegg, who didn’t want it either.
Given that PR purists would rather see the single transferable vote (STV) replace our present system, another analogy that comes to mind is the referendum in Australia in 1999 on whether to retain the Monarch as head of state or to become a republic.
Many republicans were so unhappy with the model of Presidential selection and constitutional change on offer that they voted to retain the Monarch rather than opt for a flawed republic.
Apply that logic and the STV camp might well decide to vote No on May 5 and wait and hope that a more truly representative system might be offered by later Governments.
Similarly, many Labour proponents of AV might vote against this time because tied into the reforms would be a re-drawing of constituency boundaries that would not only reduce the number of MPs for the present 650 to around 600 but would, on best estimates, benefit the Conservatives at Labour’s expense.
We do not yet know the extent of these proposed changes or whether they might affect Lincolnshire but this issue—integral to the Parliamentary debate on the referendum—has all but disappeared from any of the campaigns.
So with less than four week’s of campaigning to go, the two (or more) camps have got a lot to do to explain to a largely in different public why this matters, why their vote counts and why change is, or isn’t needed.
Their mainstream TV campaigns do try to focus on the issues but in the press and PR battle, surely it is time to get the politics out of political reform.
Spotted an error? Please notify us by selecting that text and pressing Ctrl+Enter.
Peter Smith is a retired government PR professional, now lecturing in journalism, communications and politics at the University of Lincoln.
The Lincolnite welcomes your views. All comments are reactively-moderated and must obey the house rules. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers.
The Lincolnite welcomes your views. All comments are reactively-moderated and must obey the house rules. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers.
A shopping centre on Grantham High Street sold at auction for £1,010,000, but it’s unclear who or what the new owners’ plans are for the building.
The George Centre, part of a Grade II listed building, was sold just three years ago, but was put back on the market before going under the hammer on November 26 at an auction organised by SDL Property Auctions.
There are 40 retail units, six office suites, 41 car parking spaces and one storage unit within The George Centre.
The centre, which retains the Georgian facade of the former George Hotel, had a guide price of £950,000. It sold for more, despite the centre seeing a third change of ownership in under five years.
It used to be home to businesses such as Pizza Express and Feelgood Fitness, but both closed their doors during the COVID-19 lockdown earlier this year.
The three-storey centre is steeped in history, incorporating the old George Hotel which was built in 1780. The property was significantly remodelled in the 1990s when it was converted into a shopping centre.
Lincolnshire received 20,000 lateral flow (rapid) tests for mass or community testing along with protective and IT equipment, local health bosses confirmed.
The county can get tests for up to 10% of the population (around 75,000 kits) but it doesn’t yet have the capacity or staff to do so.
Professor Derek Ward, Director of Public Health at Lincolnshire County Council, said the current allocation was “plenty for the short term”.
His team will look at where to focus the testing at an outbreak management board meeting next week.
These include “specific geographies, or population groups where we’re seeing a lot of cases and we don’t know why,” he said.
“So that might be a very small group of streets where we’re seeing lots of positives, but we don’t understand and we’d want to get in there […] and test [everyone] to see if any of them are asymptomatic.”
Other locations include “high consequence” settings such as children’s care homes, emergency services such as fire and rescue teams, and health and care settings.
Professor Ward, however, said the delivery would depend on capacity.
“We’ve got a finite number of nurses and a lot of the time those are helping with care home outbreaks,” but he added that if infection rates came down, those nurses could be redeployed.
People can also do the tests themselves.
Professor Ward also welcomed the vaccine news this week, but warned that initially they will be stored through United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust for now, because it is the only place with cold enough storage for the Pfizer Biotech vaccine (at -70℃).
He said further details were still expected on how mobile the vaccine can be delivered, though it’s hoped the upcoming Oxford vaccine would be easier to move around and supply to, for instance, GP practices and pharmacists.
“It’s really important that we don’t waste them, so if we’ve got vaccines in the hospital, it should be used first to vaccinate our hospital staff and people in hospital and then, when we can move it around, we start to vaccinate our residents.”
Professor Ward said now is the time to double down on following guidelines during the “tough winter” while the vaccine is handed out.
Infection rate up to Dec 3. | Data: GOV UK / Table: The Lincolnite
Yet health bosses are currently concerned about infection rates at a district level. They said lower population numbers can mean small outbreaks will have a dramatic effect and those outbreaks can remain on the books for a long time while as people self-isolate.
But their own numbers, are were more up to date than the public government dashboard, also show lower figures.
Care home outbreaks from 10 days ago are still on Boston’s figures for instance, similar with Lincoln — which will mean those districts could drop again next week if no further outbreaks occur.
There were 486 new coronavirus cases and 18 COVID-related deaths in Greater Lincolnshire on Thursday.
Boston has the second highest infection rate in the county with 547.2 cases per 100,000 of the population, a large spike since Wednesday’s rate of 501.6.
Lincoln came in ninth in the country with an increase from 371.6 Wednesday, to 385.7 Thursday.
Professor Ward said the general trend at a county level is still downwards, but not decreasing as quickly as it went up.
“Let’s not throw it away over the next few weeks and over Christmas. Let’s keep doing what we’re doing, rollout the vaccine, get better testing models and it could work.
“I know our figures are coming down quite quickly now, which is great, so it’s all good news, but it could all change if we if we throw it away — so let’s stick with our messages.”
He added that deaths will remain high until at least next week because of the lag from the latest peak of the virus in terms of those worst affected.
East Midlands Deputy Chief Constable Chris Haward has been chosen as Lincolnshire Police and Crime Commissioner Marc Jones’ preferred candidate for the county’s new chief constable.
If the Lincolnshire Police and Crime Panel approve the choice next Thursday, Mr Haward will be offered a £161,115 yearly salary — 12.7% higher than the advertised £142,896.
The decision is a change from Mr Jones’ previous preferred candidate, Assistant Chief Constable of Derbyshire Police Paul Gibson.
The process of searching for a new chief constable was restarted in October following “procedural complications”.
The previously chosen replacement for Bill Skelly, who retires this month, was blocked by “issues relating to the probable disclosure of candidates’ information” to the Lincolnshire Police and Crime Panel, which was meant to approve the new chief.
After taking legal advice it became clear that it would be complicated, costly and potentially lengthy to address, the PCC said.
In a report before councillors set to meet next week, Mr Jones outlines how he, and his chief executive worked with independent members to choose Mr Haward.
There were five initial applicants for the role, of which four were shortlisted but one candidate did not complete a psychometric test in time and the list was narrowed down further to three.
Lincolnshire Police and Crime Commissioner Marc Jones.
“Given the extensive and thorough nature of the selection and assessment process, the PCC is satisfied that Chris Haward is eminently suitable as the next Chief Constable for Lincolnshire Police,” said the report.
“Accordingly, the PCC proposes to the PCP that Chris Haward be appointed as the next Chief Constable for Lincolnshire Police.”
As well as being East Midlands DCC, Mr Haward is also counter-terrorism lead for the East Midlands.
Proposed terms and conditions indicate the contract will be for the current maximum of five years, and that Mr Haward will buy a property close to Lincolnshire Police’s Nettleham HQ.
Mr Jones will also pay relocation costs and a vehicle for Mr Haward.
The discussion will see the press and public excluded from the meeting while talks are ongoing.
A spokesman for Marc Jones said he would not comment until after the panel make their decision.
Whatsapp
