PARLIAMENTARY COLUMN

Parliamentary column RMT helpline 0800 3763706 :: april 2011 :: RMTnews 9 It is welcome that RMT has joined a number of major other unions in recommending their members vote NO to changing the system by which we vote for our MPs in the referendum on May 5. As a strong supporter of trade unions in Parliament I can say without hesitation that it is vitally important that as many trade unionists as possible vote NO. This is because the new system, known as the Alternative Vote (AV), breaks the principle of one person one choice, because supporters of fringe parties, such as the BNP end up having their vote counted several times while supporters of mainstream parties only have their vote counted once. Under AV the candidate that comes in second or even third place can end up winning! I believe that this is fundamentally undemocratic because it means the voting system rather than the voter’s ends up determining who is the best candidate. It is perhaps not surprising then that only three countries use the complicated system - Australia, Fiji and Papua New Guinea - and Australia has compulsory voting to make sure people turn up. As well as the fact that AV is less democratic than our current system we should also not forget that when we vote on May 5th we are being asked to vote on a new system that is a direct result of the shoddy Tory Lib Dem deal to form a coalition government. The price for the Lib Dems of agreeing to be part of a government which is launching an all out assault on the welfare state, privatising our health services and attacking trade union and employment rights is the hope that they can win a referendum on AV. And why are the Lib Dems so desperate for you to vote Yes on May 5? It is for the simple reason that they hope to be the main winners of the new system by wining many more seats through being everybody's second choice. And that’s the reality of AV, it’s a politician’s fix which will take even more power away from voters and allow the Liberal Democrats choose every government in the future. And we now know that their preferred partner in all future governments will be the Tories. Coalition government can happen under our current system as well from time to time. But the introduction of AV will make Coalition government, with the Lib Dems in the driving seat, permanent outcome in future British elections. As the Labour campaign against AV has argued, the only vote that really counts under AV is Nick Clegg's. Where is the democracy in allowing the party that comes third to decide whether Labour go into government or not? Our current tried and tested voting system delivers clear outcomes and everyone's vote is equal and it is therefore more democratic than AV. Our current system also gives Labour a fighting chance of getting the Tories out in the future. In contrast if AV comes in we could be saddled with this Tory led coalition for generations. Vote NO to AV on 5 May. John Cryer is the Labour MP for Leyton and Wanstead VOTE NO TO AV ON 5 MAY EARLY DAY MOTION 1383 That this House welcomes the railway renewal work undertaken by rail workers including installing overhead lines, signals and laying track which is vital to a safe and efficient railway; notes renewals are undertaken for Network Rail by numerous contractors and subcontractors and is deeply concerned Network Rail is managing these contracts by prioritising short-term budgetary objectives over the needs of the railway infrastructure; believes this feast and famine approach has resulted in essential renewals being delayed, such as work that could be undertaken by Babcock Rail in the North East, which will lead to a poorer service and increased costs; is alarmed that this policy has already directly resulted in the loss of thousands of skilled rail jobs and railway knowledge, as demonstrated by Jarvis being forced into administration, and is being used as a deliberate strategy to worsen conditions of employment and to extend agency and sub-contracted labour; further notes research undertaken by the RMT union and academics demonstrating that the complex network of contractors and sub- contractors means there are tens of thousands of rail workers employed by a multitude of companies undertaking renewals and that substantial savings could be achieved if renewals were instead carried out in-house as was the case before railway privatisation; and urges Network Rail and the Government to assess urgently the benefits of bringing renewals in-house under the control of Network Rail and to convene an industry-wide summit, including trade unions, to develop a co- ordinated strategy for railway infrastructure and skills retention. Kelvin Hopkins Labour MP for Luton North