To most people the very notion of the unelected Lords debating amd voting on electoral reform will seem very odd. Indeed there are those who argue that it is none of our business. I disagree.
The Lords has a constitutional role to scrutinise the Government, to debate and report on issues of current concern, and to scrutinise and amend legislation. It does so as a chamber made up of appointed experts with experience and with little political ambition, meaning more objectivity and less power to the whips. In this case the wealth of experience from Lords with many years service in the Commons can add value.
That doesn’t mean my commitment to an elected second chamber is diminished. We urgently need the legitimacy of a mandate through election in the Lords, but reformed to hang on to the best elements of what we currently have. And as part of a wider coherent package of parliamentary reform that increases accountability and that reduces the power of the executive over the legislature – the power of Government over Parliament.
Given the current all party consensus that we need a Lords reform, we need a complete package that looks at Parliament as a whole.
We need to define the role and working pratices of both chambers, including their relationship with the executive. Then we can better determine their size (currently we are bizarrely considering reducing the size of the elected Commons whilst increasing hugely the size of the appointed Lords) and how each are elected. At that point these principles should be put to the electorate, on a day without the distorting effect of other elections, in a referendum or series of referenda.
With that mandate we can then determine whether we have fixed term Parliaments, how long the term should be and how regularly the constituency boundaries should be reviewed. Finally we can then commission the review of new constituency boundaries, with public inquiries at least in the first instance given the scale of change.
This would take time but such huge constitutional change should attempt consensus, at least on process. The current rush seems to be driven by a political deadline that would allow the Libdems that iconic achievement of electoral reform within a year of forming the coalition, and give the Tories the prize of cutting the number of MPs in Labour cities and in Wales and Scotland.
On the substantive question of electoral reform itself, I have always been in favour of a move to the alternative vote in Parliamentary and council elections.
I have spent my whole political career in the South West where tactical voting dominates political campaigns. When I was in Wiltshire and Somerset we were at the wrong end of it. In South Dorset we overcame it in 1997 when we went from third to a very close second, so that in 2001 I won, in part thanks to Billy Bragg’s vote swapping campaign. But whichever side of the tactical vote I was on, it always left a bad taste – I prefer campaigning on issues that people care about.
The Alternative Vote would not only consign the two-horse race clip art to the dustbin of electoral history where it belongs, it would also give us the best of both worlds.
AV is not a more proportional system but a fairer one. Every vote counts in the constituency and it ensures the elected representative has at least 50% support. But it doesn’t distribute seats nationally on a proportional basis and thus avoids perpetual coalition. Such a result gives disproportionate power to smaller parties and is thus equally unfair. Incidentally, to ensure that no first preference vote is wasted, I advocate re-using those votes to decide second chamber representatives on a regional PR list basis – Billy Bragg’s secondary mandate.
These are huge issues. The credibility of Parliament desperately needs to be restored. With a proper process and a measured pace I believe we can achieve sensible non-partisan reform.
“To most people the very notion of the unelected Lords debating amd voting on electoral reform will seem very odd.”
Not more odd than another major constitutional change occurring without the public being presented with any real way to directly or indirectly decide – and don’t say reform was in the manifesto as though manifesto commitments are honoured by parties, read or even trusted by voters.
“The Alternative Vote would not only consign the two-horse race clip art to the dustbin of electoral history where it belongs, it would also give us the best of both worlds.”
“Such a result gives disproportionate power to smaller parties and is thus equally unfair.”
Where’s Lord Norton 🙂
It’s demonstrably not the best of both worlds. It’s more expensive, more liable to voter error/spoilt ballots, not proportional, doesn’t necessarily delivery the candidate with the most support or votes as the winner and uses the votes of those with the least support as the tie breakers to be redistributed first. So the likes of the BNP are most likely to see their second preference matter.
Britain Votes 2010/lecture give a nice explanation as to why the voting patterns and changes make the AV vote largely irrelevant.
“Where’s Lord Norton”
Bowling with Francis Drake, the Spanish Armada has been sighted.
“It ensures the elected representative has at least 50% support.”
No it doesn`t as I explained elsewhere. The mandate is that the winner recieves 50% of all votes. All votes includes second, third, fourth and so on preferences. See my post:
http://lordsoftheblog.net/2010/10/19/all-party-group-on-the-constitution/#comments
AV would be more unfair than any other, as a Labour voter I would take it you`d not put Conservative second ? Likewise a Tory. This means that Lib-Dems surrepticiously gain an advantage or so they think, my feeling is a lot of working class would put BNP second in more cases than politicians think.
You talk of legitamacy the way a sovereign would talk of God given right. You had an “x” on the day no more than that, the chances are a day later any Government is despised and the people want rid.
The people get what they get, forget the promises we know most are lies. We endure. As we do with the Lords BUT the Lords are more likely to listen, to hold Government to account. Politicians know all the answers so don`t listen, a bit like you come across, I know full well that not a word I say in evidence will change your opinion, you`re fresh from market where spiel is everything and still have youth and arrogance. ” I ” enters your blogs far too much.
Legitimacy means what ? What the law states you can do, therefore the Lords are legitimate, as legitimate as the Commons. I take it you didn`t vote for the Queen, nor I. I don`t say she has no legitimacy do you ???? Her power is limited by Law, as is the Lords…..It`s a shame the Commons see fit to change long standing law such as Constitutional Law and the Bill of Rights, although the latter they seem able to call upon when they`ve transgressed, whenever they seem to think they`ll gain an advantage.
” The credibility of Parliament desperately needs to be restored. ”
Then Parliament needs to make law for the people not inspite of them. Parliament is not making laws the people think are right, it ignores their wishes and decieves at elections and you ask to be judged credible ??
It is not Parliaments right to Judge the people, the Courts are there for that. It is not Parliaments right to deny the people. It is Parliaments right to be behind the people in fair decisions that are just. Most of the people want a referendum on the EU not AV but hold up that may harm business…..Business doesn`t vote for you, people do. Don`t ask to be credible in the peoples eyes when it`s not their wishes or their laws you wish to make.
In a 4 year Parliament the legitimacy you speak of is possibly no more than 6 months. The fact is that by Law they have a right to remain legitimately for the rest of the period and by Law so do the Lords. You ask if the unelected Lords are legitimate to scrutinise electoral reform ? I ask is the Commons legitimate in it`s rights to debate Lords Reform ? I know which House will give a fairer hearing !
Carl.H: “my feeling is a lot of working class would put BNP second in more cases than politicians think.”
You might find that they put BNP first as a protest vote and their preferred party second, in the expectation that their first choice will get dumped and the second will get it. I could see many smaller parties doing unexpectedly well under such circumstances, at least the first time it was tried. People might be wiser on the second attempt.
I take it you didn`t vote for the Queen, nor I. I don`t say she has no legitimacy do you (Carl)
Ha! Ha! Good one!
I shall be very surprised indeed if Lords reform gets anywhere,unless it reinforces the
prerogstives of th Crown,and tghe Lords themselves.
I am certainly not in favour of a “stronger”
chamber, merely one which does something useful, which currently it scarcely does at all.
Fewer powers; fewer members; more work; less clubbing!
I am suprised that a man of 45 should want to concern himself with such a house of geriatrics, unless he has experience in similar skills to the noble Baroness Murphy,
of psychogeriatrics.
Just popped back to make sure this blog wasn`t signed after the fact !