KHAN V METRO: Response from Press Complaints Commission

I blogged last month about the letter above. I was so incensed by it, I contacted the Press Complaints Commission (PCC). The main thrust of my argument was:

By printing a letter they [METRO] have undue influence in an important referendum. METRO wouldn't publish a letter saying a vote for Ken Livingstone next year is wasted because of changes to the Greater London Authority Act 2007. Why? becuase it's complete nonsense, BUT apparently it is acceptable to publish a letter that is nonsense, yet can pass as fact to influence voters in a referendum. Is this fair?

The Complaints Officer replied with the following:

[Mr Khan] The Commission members have asked me to thank you for giving them the opportunity to consider the points you raise. However, their decision is that there has been no breach of the Code in this case. A full explanation of the Commission’s decision is attached (below).

Although the Commissioners have come to this view, they have asked me to send a copy of your letter to the editor so that they are aware of your concerns.

Commission’s decision in the case of

Khan v Metro

The Commission was concerned that the newspaper had published a letter which included inaccuracies. He was concerned that the publication of such a letter would influence the votes of readers.

The letters page of a newspaper has traditionally been a forum in which readers can express their views freely. Readers of this page would understand that the opinions expressed in the published correspondence would not necessarily be impartial or represent statements of facts, but rather the personal views of the correspondent. In regard to the letter in contention, the Commission considered that readers would understand that the complainant was expressing his position on the concept of AV generally, rather than making any specific statement about the voting system and the number of candidates you were required to vote for. In light of this, the Commission could not establish a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

The complainant had pointed out that the newspaper had failed to publish his letter in response. The selection of material, including readers’ letters, for publication is matter for the discretion of individual editors and, as such, it could not comment on the matter further.

Reference No. 112***

"Readers of this page would understand that the opinions expressed in the published correspondence would not necessarily be impartial or represent statements of facts, but rather the personal views of the correspondent."

I would argue that unless METRO clearly carried a disclaimer - using similar wording to the above sentence taken from the decision - then such letters can be influential.
--------------------------------------------------
Tags croydon, greenparty

The post referendum letter that didn't get published

with Labour MP Malcolm Wicks - one of the small minority of Croydon Labour politicians that voted 'YES'.

Campaigning with former Conservative MP, now Labour activist, Andrew Pelling

I sent this letter (below) to the local papers but annoyingly it wasn't published.

12.05.11

Dear Editor,

May I take this opportunity to thank all those who voted ‘Yes’ in the recent referendum. I would also like to offer thanks to Labour MP Malcolm Wicks for supporting AV. He took a principled position on voting reform, whereas all bar two Labour councillors (Watson and Fitzsimmons) rejected this opportunity to introduce a fairer, more progressive brand of politics in Croydon. In doing so, these same Labour councillors showed their true colours. They sided with a ‘No’ campaign that was endorsed and paid for by the Conservative party; a campaign that said a vote for ‘Yes’ would lead to babies dying and soldiers being killed.

If Labour in Croydon were genuinely progressive in nature they would have voted ‘Yes’. AV would have been the step change to build a politics founded on fairness and not fear. I am sure this progression would have eventually filtered down to local level too. Instead, Labour chose their safe seats and salaries, and to preserve the twin kingdom scenario, where one group governs alone leaving the other group to wait for their opportunity to fight on the battlegrounds at the centre at the end of the reign; in Croydon’s case, the marginal wards of Addiscombe, Waddon, South Norwood. It all sounds like a tale from ancient times.

It is the only system the councillors know. They inherited it and they will preserve it for the next intake. It is important to remember, if all politicians thought like this, the vote would still be the restricted to landowners and men.

Yours sincerely

Shasha Khan

Croydon Green Party

--------------------------------------------------
Tags croydon, greenparty

Letter from Gordon in the paper

Letter from local party Membership secretary Gordon Ross in the paper.
--------------------------------------------------
Tags croydon, greenparty

Thoughts on the AV Referendum

The Count at Trinity School

When the result of the referendum was declared, the only people who cheered were the count staff!

AV REFERENDUM RESULT IN CROYDON

At present, the UK uses the first past the post system to to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the Alternative Vote System be used instead?”

YES---- 28,789 ----(33%)

NO ---- 58,475 ----(67%)

Turnout 36%

Considering our neighbouring borough, Sutton - with its Liberal Democrat MPs and Lib Dem controlled council - had an almost identical result with a 39% turnout, we in the 'Yes' campaign ought to give ourselves some credit for a 2-1 defeat. Ours was a scratch team, unlike our Sutton counterparts who had the Lib Dem electoral machine in situ. Equally, the Croydon electorate should be credited given that, apart from two Labour councillors (Watson and Fitzsimmons) and Malcolm Wicks MP, elected politicians in our twin kingdom borough were against AV.

Croydon Loony (John Cartwright) has posted an excellent piece on his web site about the referendum. At the count John kept a record of the imaginative (and some not so imaginative) comments on the doubtful ballot papers which needed adjudication. Most had a comment relating to proportional representation not being offered, although the most amusing one has to be:

Fuck Nick Clegg, his mum, his dad. Fuck Obama. Love Osama

The table above lists reasons given by BBC Newsnight on why the 'Yes' campaign lost - in order of preference [yawn]. They are all valid, especially the first one. A friend of mine messaged me on Facebook saying:

"i won't be voting, don't know enough or ultimately care enough!"

It doesn't say it all BUT it says enough.

The reason not listed is the one our friendly ballot paper spoiler [he circled YES - woooohooo] referred to: NICK CLEGG.
AV was seen by many as his baby, and many wanted to give him a good kicking. It should be pointed out, with particular reference to number 3, that in Croydon the right was not left out. Our joint letter was also signed by the local UKIP chairman.

Source: Betfair

The graph above shows how and when the odds on a 'Yes' win noticeably lengthened. The electorate only started to give a "flying fptp" about the referendum about a month ago, roughly about the time the 'No' campaign began their appalling advertising campaign. Thus, those non tribal voters, who were now starting to give a "flying fptp", had begun to formulate an opinion around 'No'. Once a voter settles on an opinion, its always difficult to change their view.

--------------------------------------------------

Tags croydon, greenparty

AV - Croydon Advertiser coverage

Link to online version
--------------------------------------------------
Tags croydon, greenparty

"Lies" peddled by the 'NO' campaign

The methods and tactics of the 'No' campaign, supported by their traditional newspapers, have been nothing short of unbelievable. A friend of mine, who is involved in compliance on television, advised me that the Advertising Standards Agency should be alerted to the lies that the 'No' campaign have been peddling on billboards up and down the country. IT JUST GOES TO SHOW HOW IMPORTANT PRESERVING THE PRESENT ANTIQUATED VOTING SYSTEM IS TO THE 'NO' CAMPAIGN. A CHANGE WILL BE THE START OF THE END TO THE TRIBAL POLITICS* THAT HAS DOGGED OUR DEMOCRACY.

*Vote for us or the other lot, you really don't want, get in.

The attached letter appeared in the Metro on 21st April. How is it that letters such as this are allowed without censure? METRO have placed this letter in their paper, arguably knowing that there is no basis in fact. However, by printing a letter they have undue influence in an important referendum. METRO wouldn't publish a letter saying a vote for Ken Livingstone next year is wasted because of changes to the Greater London Authority Act 2007. Why? because its complete nonsense, BUT apparently it is acceptable to publish a letter that is nonsense, yet can pass as fact to influence voters in a referendum. Is this fair?

Below is a letter I sent to the METRO which they haven't published:

Lawrence Barnett (Metro Mail 21^st April) is apparently a victim of the misinformation surrounding AV that is in circulation. He wants to vote for only one candidate. Under the AV system proposed, you can. The AV ballot paper will look exactly the same as it currently does. Instead of only putting an ‘X’ in just one box, you will be able to put a ‘1,2,3…' and so on in as many boxes as you please. You can rank as many or as few candidates as you like. If you only want to support one candidate, you can - just mark an ‘X’ as you did before. AV gives you the freedom to show support sincerely for any number of candidates you feel are up to the job.

--------------------------------------------------
Tags croydon, greenparty

Unprecedented joint letter supporting AV

from Croydon Advertiser (Friday 22th April)

I wonder if this is an unprecedented joint letter for Croydon (probably never to be repeated!!), given there are four local parties represented? Naturally it took a little coordinating - but happily we got there.

STARTS:

Dear Editor

On 5th May voters in Croydon will join those across the country in voting on the Alternative Vote (AV) referendum to decide how MPs in future should be elected to the House of Commons.

In our 'winner takes all' electoral system the outcome is decided in a tiny handful of seats, and very few voters have a real say, having to resort to negative tactical voting. Currently it is possible to become an MP with just one-third of the vote! For many MPs a safe seat means a job for life.

AV is a fairer system and is better for the public becuase MPs will have been elected by a real majority instead of by the largest minority. It should make politicians reach out beyond their core supporters and good MPs should appreciate having truer mandate from their constituents.

An AV ballot paper will look exactly the same as it currently does. Instead of only putting an 'X' in just one box, you will be able to put a '1,2,3...' and so on in as many boxes as you please. You can rank as many or as few candidates as you like. If you only want to support one candidate, you can - just mark an 'X' as you did before. AV gives you the freedom to show support sincerely for any number of candidates you feel are up to the job.
We, the undersigned, have put our Party differences aside to show why a YES vote will give YOU a stronger voice in your constituency and create a more progressive and fairer brand of politics. We urge you to vote 'Yes' to fairer votes.

Yours sincerely

Gerry Jerome (Liberal Democrat)
Shasha Khan (Green Party)
Andrew Pelling (Labour)
Peter Staveley (UKIP)
Malcolm Wicks MP (Labour)
--------------------------------------------------
Tags croydon, greenparty

More AV discussion

I keep hearing from David Cameron that AV is complicated. This is just one of several deceitful arguments that the 'No' campaign have been pushing. Once explained it is quite simply as easy as 1,2,3. That said, explaining AV to someone who has poor English is fairly challenging, at least that was my experience in Thornton Heath recently. With some useful aids, such as a Pizza topping comparison used by Lewes 'Yes' to Fairer Votes, we managed to get there at the end.

I read in The Times a clever analogy using 'X' Factor and Britain's Got Talent written by Dr. Alan Renwick. Green Party Councillor Rupert Read has blogged on this. It's certainly an explanation I plan to keep up my sleeve.

Further straight forward explanations and deceitful arguments will be espoused on 27th April in Croydon when Purley Baptist Church hosts a debate on AV. MPs Tom Brake and Malcolm Wicks will slug it out with Richard Ottaway and Gavin Barwell . Starts 8pm.

Stall outside Tesco's in Thornton Heath.
--------------------------------------------------
Tags croydon, greenparty

Letter on AV (responding to the Beckett and Barwell pose)

Dear Editor,

The Alternative Vote (AV) is a fairer electoral system than the current First Post The Post (FPTP) system. AV is preferable when there are several candidates. It forces candidates to appeal to 50% cent of the electorate and thus represent a wider cross section of views rather than just those of the usual party supporters. Hence, I found it bizarre to see Tory Gavin Barwell MP posing alongside former Labour cabinet member Margeret Beckett MP (Croydon Advertiser Friday 1^st April) defending the FPTP voting system. The Labour Party uses AV to elect its leader and similarly, Conservatives use a form of AV to elect their leader. Which begs the question: if it's okay for you then why isn’t it okay for us? Historically, FPTP was reliable when this country had a two-party system, but we presently live in a multi-party democracy. One third of the electorate did not vote Conservative or Labour in the last general election.

Yours sincerely

Shasha Khan

Croydon Green Party

--------------------------------------------------
Tags croydon, greenparty

Cross party support in Croydon for 'YES' to fairer votes.

Croydon Greens joined politicians and activists from the Lib Dems, Labour, The Electoral Reform Society and even the Monster Raving Loony Party at the offical launch of the Croydon 'Yes' campaign on Tuesday14th April. Peter Staveley from UKIP was hoping to come along but work commitments meant he wasn't able to attend. So the only party that wasn't represented were the Conservatives - they are all in the 'No' camp. However, former Conservative MP, then Independent candidate, now Labour activist, Andrew Pelling, was in attendance. Credit due to Wicks, Pelling and Councillor Mark Watson (who arrived after the above picture was taken) for standing up for fairer politics in Croydon.


The above picture was also taken at the official launch. The last time Gerry Jerome (Liberal Democrat), Malcolm Wicks MP (Labour) and myself stood beside each other was on stage in the main hall at Trinty school for the results of the Croydon North constituency in last years General Election. In fact Malcolm joked in his own inimitable style, "Hang on where's Jason Haddon?". Mr Haddon was the Tory candidate who managed to enrage the Labour activists to such an extent, due to his questionable campaigning methods, that he had to cut short his speech - on said stage - due to the booing and jeering.
--------------------------------------------------
Tags croydon, greenparty

Referendum images PART 1

A wholesome photo taken in Wallington Town Centre. Our own Brendan Walsh and Phil Mouncey (Sutton) joined by Peter Morley (Electoral Reform Society) who is coordinating the Sutton and Croydon campaign.

--------------------------------------------------
Tags croydon, greenparty

Was an ambush the intention?

It's four weeks exactly until the referendum on the voting system. Treasurer of the Sutton & Croydon "Yes to Fairer Votes" Campaign, Gordon Ross, has been working hard to get the 'Yes' campaign's message out there. Gordon is also Membership Secretary of our local Green Party, and in 2010 he was our candidate for Croydon South.

So, it was Gordon whom I contacted when I received an email from the 'No' campaign asking if I would speak on behalf of the 'Yes' campaign at a meeting at Ruskin House. I was quite surprised to receive such an email given that a) there is an official 'YES' group, and b) I haven't really been active in the 'YES' campaign (NB. I'll be voting YES).


I contacted the committee of our local 'YES' group and asked if they knew about the meeting? After a couple of phone calls, I realised that the meeting was organised by the 'NO' campaign themselves. It seems the terms and format of any public debates on the referendum have not been agreed, nonetheless the 'NO' campaign has gone ahead and organised meetings which haven't been sanctioned by the 'YES' campaign.

As it turned out, I was unable to attend the meeting. The report in the Croydon Advertiser, who incidentally chaired the debate, says that Croydon North MP, Malcolm Wicks was also asked to speak for AV but "declined" the invitation. Its a bit cheeky for the 'NO' campaign to circumvent the local 'YES' campaign and set up a debate anyway. Why not simply have a 'NO' campaign rally? Or was the intention to secure an unsuspecting pro AV speaker to be set up for an ambush?? I ask this because initially I was not told that Margaret Beckett, President of the 'NO' Campaign, was going to be in attendance. I was only told that Gavin Barwell MP would be speaking in favour of First Past The Post. I use the words speaking in favour of First Past The Post loosely because their Advertising campaign has not presented any arguments in favour: "SHE NEEDS A NEW MATERNITY UNIT NOT AN ALTERNATIVE VOTING SYSTEM" and "HE NEEDS BULLETPROOF VESTS NOT AN ALTERNATIVE VOTING SYSTEM". Charlie Brooker cleverly highlighted the absurdity in this advertising campaign on 10 O'Clock Live: by the same token, the soldier must fight the baby for the bulletproof vests as well.

Come to think of it, it is entirely probable that a group that uses such imagery to present an argument would look to set up an ambush.

--------------------------------------------------
Tags croydon, greenparty

Green Party finish second in mock AV election

Well done 5 Live on setting up a FPTP/AV 'compare and contrast' mock election using the constituency of Brentford and Isleworth. I could argue that the results were very encouraging for the Greens - AM Darren Johnson finished second under AV - but by the presenters' own admission the experiment was unscientific. What it does maybe show is that the demographic that listens to 5 Live during the day is progressive in thought. An interesting comparison would be to do the whole thing again with LBC or TALK SPORT listeners.




--------------------------------------------------
Tags croydon, greenparty