Yesterday I took part in short question session initiated by Lord McAvoy, who wanted to know what changes he could make to the Parliamentary Voting Systems and Constituencies Bill, which would be significant enough to delay the AV referendum.
As I pointed out, there is only one part of the Bill which focuses on this issue, so clearly only a big change to that bit of the Bill – on the referendum – could possibly be cause to delay this long-awaited chance for people to have their say on the electoral system. Indeed, the Electoral Commission has been absolutely clear that they are able to operate the timetable set out by the Government and hold that referendum on 5th May 2011.
Since the Bill, in any event, concerns itself with elections to the House of Commons, I do hope Peers will remember their long-held attachment to the primacy of that House, and not seek unnecessary delay just to exercise their own particular political hobby horses.
Indeed two attempts to change the date of the referendum were roundly defeated in the Commons on Tuesday by 323 to 28 and 326 to 264 respectively.
As the Minister, Lord McNally, put it, “this Bill deals with matters mainly to do with the House of Commons. When it comes here, this House will treat it with the respect due to such a Bill, but will give it the scrutiny that will help the Government in making it a good Bill to take to Royal Assent.”
In other words, help us make the Bill work to do what the Commons want it to do (bring about a referendum and establish fair constituency boundaries) but don’t start trying to unpick the whole principle of the legislation. The Bill will no doubt be usefully developed in the Lords; it need not be delayed.
It still seems to me a shame that there is not be no proper proportional representation system offered to the public to vote upon. AV is not much better than FPTP in terms of the make-up of the Commons representing the numbers of votes cast for each party.
In terms of the Commons, I agree. I think that perhaps a proper proportional Voting System would be a good idea.
Or at the very least a proper fits past the post runoff election cycle.
Even now, I see no-one going far enough to start the much-needed greater world- & democratic-citizenship education and enablement of evey Level of The People, ongoingly.
Neither FPTP, AV, nor Proportional-Representation can come anywhere near being maximally democratic i.e. people-and-individual-citizen-upwards, continuously between elections.
=============
A truly Participatory Democracy needs to enable, and then empower, each citizen to compile and submit a complete list of his-her Vital-Needs, as the primary democratic-act, and to perform this act well prior to selecting the right experts to make the necessary Legislations thereto.
But the traditionally conformist and patriotic British citizen has been kidded that the Government (and every parliamentarian, candidate, and political-party) will always “listen to you”, and always “let you have your say”.
The only enablement-and-empowerment, traditionally and ongoingly at present, is the mere token-of-input once every 5-years for about 10 seconds, for the citizen to make just one or two quick but in effect dumb, deaf, and blind erasable pencil marks on a tiny scrap of paper against one, two or perhaps three little-known names; not as it should be, to mark indelible ink numbers alongside an exhaustive list of Plans for meeting the priorly-submitted Citizenry Needs, Hows, and Affordable-Costs; that should be all thagt is needed, because competent legislators and teams-of-legislators (“parties”) will, before Polling Day, have chosen which Plan to nail their colours to on the Voting paper.
=============
0333F15Oct10
Where’s our even longer-awaited say on the EU?
I believe your Lordship has voted against giving the public a say on the EU on several occasions.
What is needed is a bill to ensure MP`s represent their constituencies not their party.
We could talk all day on styles which best implement democracy and the wishes of the electorate but in truth the AV referendum is not about that. It is merely another political to suit certain parties.
True democracy, which may infact be very close to idealised communism, can never work there are too many variables so at some point we must accept a majority wish, a FPTP wish.
Neither MP`s or most Lords truely believe in the fairness of represented votes, this can plainly be seen in the Lords itself. Bloated beyond all logic no party in the whole process wishes for something fair and even, they wish the upper hand and this skulduggery that maybe a referendum for AV is nothing less.
The concept that is being put forward is to merely gain more power for what is infact a minority in this case the Liberal Democrats. Where should one stop this idea of representation ? Surely judging by the calls to be represented the million or so people who are inclined to vote BNP should be represented ? Who draws the line and where ? Is it just the case of the Lib-dems drawing the line just behind themselves ?
How can we talk of fair representation when infact MP`s represent the Party not the constituents most of the time ? Of course representation doesn`t work, at this present time we can see that clearly. The electorate voted a Conservative Government into power but it cannot represent the people who have no wishes for cuts at all, which maybe the demise of this Government.
Alternative voting doesn`t work either, what are the alternatives if you are a Tory ? It`s like asking an Arsenal supporter if you can`t be a Gunner would you support Spurs or Man Utd ? There are likely winners especially in poorer sections of the community, alot of people would put BNP second, please be aware of that. The Lib-dems may think they may be better off with AV but then again at the last election it was thought they had a very good chance of winning only to end on less seats than pre-election.
With AV you are making a mistake and with hard times ahead it would be easy to make analogies with Germany circa 1933. It couldn`t happen here could it ?
I agree that it is a great pity that we are getting Alternative Vote as the only option other than First Past The Post.
Particularly as the Single Transferable Vote, in which you vote in exactly the same way as the alternative vote, but elect more than one – usually at least three – members per constituency makes drawing constituency boundaries much easier. Basically you draw the constituency boundaries to match natural communities – say a whole county or a city – and then match the number of seats to the size of the constituency.
What is proposed – AV plus boundary revision – promises huge amounts of disruption to little practical advantage. Not a conservative sort of thing to do, surely
As my nickname suggests I have voted in Ireland and used both STV and AV and assure you from experience that STV is far superior.(Actually although living in London I still vote in elections in Ireland; to choose three members of the Irish Upper House, the Senate.)
Chris K, you should know by now that the Powers that be have just sort of decreed we a part of Europe and must move toward Integration. Why do we need a say? Democracy only works when you know they outcome is in your favour, and until we can be reeducated into accepting Union, we can’t voe on the topic. Too much risk you see, we may vote to be removed form it. That just can’t be done…
Lord McNally, put it, “this Bill deals with matters mainly to do with the House of Commons.When it comes here, this House will treat it with the respect due to such a Bill”
This is about the method of election of the democratic house – it’s not some private matter of administration or organisation of the commons that is of no concern or interest to the Lords or the country.
“but don’t start trying to unpick the whole principle of the legislation.”
Because it has a democratic mandate due to both parties in the government had manifesto commitments for a referendum on AV – oh wait no they didn’t….
I think I shall save what I have to say on voting systems for a book. However, I do find soooo annoying the specious arguments from certain quarters that the UK electorate is incapable of addressing more than one question at a polling station.
Many of us electors mastered answering multiple questions at a single sitting by the age of 11. The only difficulty many of us have at the polls is that in finding candidates that represent anything even vaguely approximating to the correct answers.
D’accord; this British Two-Party State posing as a ‘Democracy’ would be lost if it had to develop honest two-way communication and reasoning, firstly at the existing form of ‘bum’s rush’ ballot box, but secondly and overwhelmingly more vitally, true long-term democratic mandatory two-way communication and reasoning with every serious individual citizen’s questions and submissions, between elections.
========
2005Sn17Oct10
establish fair constituency boundaries
I have always been under the fairly accurate impression that the boundaries commission was a permanent commission to make constant reviews of the constituency boundaries of the UK.
Has this changed, or is the “fair boundaries” legislation necessary alongside the new AV(+)
legislation in order to ensure that it is debated effectively, and not just with regulations?
I presume that the boundary commission put changes through as regulations on the nod but from which department of state, I do not know.
How is the Boundaries commission involved now, or has it been defunct for some time?
http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/
Some of the maps.
Many of us electors mastered answering multiple questions at a single sitting by the age of 11.
Stephen Paterson’s remark is significant. The introduction of multiple choice questions post dated the school careers of many politicians.
They certainly post dated mine as a serious
contender for exam formats.
The only sensible way to conduct or referendumsa is with multiple choice questions.
http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/
So many thoughtful contributions ! Too many to respond to in detail, but at least these exchanges kill stone dead the elitist accusation of the Noble opponents of reform that the issues at stake are “too complicated” for people outside Westminster to discuss and decided upon.
“Too complicated” for the public to decide?
You mean like the Lisbon Treaty was deemed to be?