The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies bill, to give it its proper name, is still going on and by my reckoning will pause half way through at about midnight. It will be resumed tomorrow – an unusual procedure but one enforced by the sheer number of speakers – 55 in all. Not only are most speakers taking at least 10 minutes to express furious thoughts but there are constant interruptions from the floor. All this is a measure of how high feelings run about this bill which, in Part 1, has the modest aim of achieving a referendum on adopting the Alternative Voting system but Part 2 of which aims to change electoral boundaries to make constituencies more equally distributed and thereby also reduce the number of MPs by 50 members.
This is both dynamite and complex. What is not in question is that the bill if enacted will mean significant changes for the British constitution. This bill is only one of at least three that will profoundly affect the constitution – the fixed term parliaments and the House of Lords Reform bills are yet to come. Perhaps no one denies that a bit of consitutional reform is no bad thing but the major concerns are that these bills have not nor will have sufficient time to be thoroughly scrutinised in committee – something at which the Lords excel and that therefore there will be unintended and adverse consequences. Furthermore, several peers have expressed concerns that reducing the number of MPs would not only interfere with the traditional relationship with constituents but also possibly upset the balance of power between the Government and Parliament.
The unwritten British constitution is a thing of shreds and patches built up over hundreds of years. Changes are not based on a blank sheet and to reform one small aspect is to affect many other aspects. The Lords believe it is their special responsibility to protect the constitution and this bill, intended to restore public confidence, may just have the opposite effect.
“The Lords believe it is their special responsibility to protect the constitution.”
Let us hope in this instant they do and it gives them courage for the future. You are between Government and us but your duty should be toward us.
After much thought I find I support both parts of the bill.
Part 1 is being touted as a far greater thing than it is. It won’t abolish safe seats and may make some an awful lot safer. Yet I do think it will improve our democracy by ensuring that 1 all votes are positively cast for candidates acording to preference, and not in a mixed way as now, with some votes going on a favourate candidate and others going against a least favourate one and 2 alow people to express their real preferences, rather than trying to second guess the votes of others.
Part 2 I cannot see as reprasenting radical change, but rather a temporary reversal of continuous long term trends for more MPs and less equal constituencies. Some of the things mentioned in the election campain went beyond that, but this is reasonable.
Necasery amendements include greater protection of island constituencies (especially the isle of White) and a debate on whether the result of the referendum will affect local government elections. I very much hope that voters will continue to be recognised as having sufficient intelegence to vote in two elections on the same day.
I wonder why Lord Falconer`s bid was defeated ? Politics ? The Whips ?
Carl H – in answer to your question – the bid to define the AV and Constituencies bill as Hybrid did fail – I’m afraid I voted against the amendment because I could not convince myself that the bill is truly hybrid. The Counsel’s opinion solicited by Labour was interesting but not in my view conclusive.
A separate issue is that had it been voted hybrid there would then have been a relatively long period of deliberation before the examiners.It is doubtful that the bill would complete committee stage before the Christmas recess and this in turn threatened the likelihood of the referendum in May 2011.
Some might argue that this would be no bad thing but again I am not convinced that this is the right way to deal with Government business. I will fully back the many amendments that will no doubt be tabled during the committee stage and I continue to believe that the bill will be a much changed one once it has survived House of Lords scrutiny.
Thank you my Lady, your words are welcome. In looking at this I am trying to work out how the Lords work, how much is politically (party) motivated, how much they actually do not want to completely deny what they have been told is the more(?) legitimate part of Parliament etc.
This Bill is of particular significance as the consensus of the House seems against in one form or another. Of course one can only judge by the speakers in debates, the rest is judged on the vote itself.
I welcome the fact my Lady voted the way she did on technical merit though of course there are many who would state it was the opposite.
“I am not convinced that this is the right way to deal with Government business.”
This statement leads me automatically to thinking along the lines of “knowing my place”. That my Lady has concluded that the Lords is not a place to deny Government Bills but to try to ensure they are as fair and just as is possible. A job that personally I would think impossible at times without the ability to deny.
The “How the House works” in this case is fascinating.
The Boundaries and Constituencies part I do not have a great deal of time to look into in any depth so cannot bring any educated decision. However from what I gather it will try to equalise the number of voters per constituency. Which seems fair at first glance but there are many sub issues such as communities etc. I do wonder if the Government thinks this ultimately the way to go if they will be pushing for the same in the EU Parliament ? If so this could leave smaller Nations with a fraction of an MEP !
Regards a system of elections, if a referendum is to be called the question should be broader and contain more options. The Lib-Dems should not be pushing for something that in no way represents their original ideaology and infact would be a far worse solution that WILL seem corrupt to the electorate. I have looked at the examples of AV and whilst I understand the system it appears wrong, complicated and can easily be misinterpreted. My belief is this will alienate voters even more than the present system. No matter how you try to justify the AV system there is always a way of looking at it to say it maybe rigged, this is not good enough.
Carl H – I will do a blog later today on the Salisbury-Addison convention and how it may apply to the House of Lords today.
Briefly, yes of course the HoL MUST be able to say no to the Government but perhaps only as a last resort. Our job is to provide reasoned argument at every stage of a bill – not to prevent such scrutiny. If the bill in question had been voted to be hybrid its second reading and subsequent stages would have been significantly delayed and the referendum promised for May 2012 even abandoned.
Thank you my Lady, that will be of great interest especially in the light of a coalition and two manifesto`s.