Blog
To AV or not AV (that is one of the questions)?
18th November 2010
Following the defeat in the Lords this week of a plan by the opposition to kill the government’s planned twin AV and constituency resizing bill, it looks more likely that there will be a referendum next May—only the second national referendum in the country’s history.
This means that consideration of the arguments for and against what the government plans are of increased importance. Voting reform can be a bit dry to newcomers, seeming like an unfortunate blizzard of systems and figures. But ultimately it comes down to what type of government, legislators and legislature we want. There is a fine balance between voter choice, representation, accountability and ease of use. So, of course, there is no such thing as a perfect electoral system given the competing and varied strengths they possess.
But I thought I’d draw your attention to a couple of articles by the Labour peer, David Lipsey, a man who served on the Jenkins Commission and is former deputy ed of the Economist. Both worth reading.
“Don’t smash the jewels in our constitutional crown” Times (15/11/10)
The House of Lords must halt this partisan manipulation of our parliamentary system
Today the House of Lords debates a Bill that, if passed, will alter the shape of our democracy for ever. If the Government succeeds, the result will be the worst partisan manipulation of Britain’s voting system since 1969, when James Callaghan, as Home Secretary, persuaded the Commons to vote down recommended boundary changes to save Labour seats at the next general election. Inexcusable though it was, that was for one election only. This Bill, however, would change Britain’s electoral system permanently.
The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill is really two separate Bills. One replaces first-past-the-post with the alternative vote system. The other cuts the number of MPs and enforces a greater uniformity of constituency size. Two Bills: one Dr Jekyll, one Mr Hyde. The Dr Jekyll is AV, which makes MPs seek broader support while preserving Britain’s treasured single-member constituency system. It is a modest but significant change for the better.
On the face of things, Mr Hyde, the constituency changes, is also modestly for the better. Surely we have too many MPs, and constituencies should be of equal size? But the devil is in the detail.
The right size for the Commons does, indeed, deserve debate. Britain’s legislature is large by international standards. But few countries impose the burden of constituency casework that falls on our MPs, who find it increasingly hard to find time for broader issues than Mr A’s council house and Ms B’s pension. Each MP already has about 22 per cent more constituents than 50 years ago.
These competing considerations ought to be weighed by an impartial commission of inquiry, charged with coming up with recommendations acceptable to all parties. Instead, the Lib Dems and Tories have decided to surf the wave of discontent in the wake of the parliamentary expenses affair by promising to cut numbers. They finally agreed on 600 MPs, a figure that many believe was chosen for partisan reasons.
It is hard to argue against the principle of more equal seat sizes. It is the practice that matters. To achieve what the Boundary Commissions have been ordered to achieve, many seats will have to be drawn in ways that ignore traditional boundaries. Some will cross county boundaries. Many more than at present will include more than one local authority. The natural links that make British constituencies a jewel in our constitutional arrangements will be torn asunder.
The Bill accepts that equal size will not always be the rule. It specifies two exceptions — the island constituencies in Scotland. But why not others, such as the Isle of Wight, whose inhabitants want to remain as one constituency?
None of this is to defend the status quo. The present system is flawed, most notably in its pro-Labour bias. However the Bill would remove only a third of that bias.
The rush is unforgivable. The case for change has not been properly examined, except by partisan politicians. Imagine if the rules of football were decided by the home team. Moreover, the Bill truncates the established process of appeals. Public hearings are to be abolished, denying people a chance to shape the system under which they are represented.
The Government wants the AV referendum to be held next May, at the same time as the Welsh and Scottish elections. But there is no logic to making the votes coincide. Indeed there is a strong case that people will reach a more considered verdict on AV if they have longer to master the arguments for and against i.t
Who should decide elections — voters, or politicians manipulating the system? The answer is obvious. It is the duty of the House of Lords as the backstop against constitutional abuse by the Commons to brake this headlong rush to half-baked change. .