This evening I chaired the inaugural meeting of the All-Party Group on the Constitution, established to help inform debate on constitutional issues. We covered the Alternative Vote (AV) and the referendum. Professor Simon Hix, Professor of European and Comparative Politics at the London School of Economics, provided an overview of AV and how it works, and how it compares to the first-past-the-post electoral system. Anthony Wells, Associate Director of YouGov, outlined the results of the TCS/YouGov poll on AV and the referendum. The poll produced some fascinating findings.
The All-Party Group is supported by the Constitution Society, which provided some very helpful briefings. You can access the briefing papers here, including the results of the poll. The poll found that there had been shifts in how people would vote in the referendum, not least among Labour supporters (switching from supporting to opposing AV), producing now slightly more respondents opposed to AV. There was also a shift away from supporting AV when arguments for and against AV were explained. Taking into account those who intended to vote, the outcome (based on current opinions) is finely balanced.
The meeting was well-attended, not least by peers. (MPs were busy in the Commons debating the Bill providing for the referendum.) We should be in for a well-informed debate when the Bill reaches our House.
I cannot access the briefing papers through my google account I`m afraid.
Still no say in any issue for the public.
In the meantime, 3 lords are about to be suspended. The obvious questions are.
1) How long is the rope?
2) Why are they all of Asian origin?
3) Same with Lord Taylor. Black.
Racism does go to heart of the establishment. Why won’t the Lords prosecute the white criminals in its midst?
Why has no action been taken against the Clerk of Parliament for handing out millions for second homes without asking people if they even have a second home?
Just what have the 11 lords investigated been up to that brings the Lords into disrepute. Shouldn’t we be told?
Lord Blagger.
Lord Blagger: I’m not sure what this has to do with the constitution.
On your first point, as has previously been pointed out by another reader, you do not appear to appreciate how blogs work. They are means of bloggers posting comments and inviting responses. Mind you, it is relevant to point out that on previous occasions I have done posts inviting readers to raise subjects on which they would like us to write, but very few suggestions have been made. Readers seem content for us to post comments in the way that we do and then respond.
I have already commented on the issue of the action being taken against Lords Paul and Bhatia and Baroness Uddin in response to a comment in an earlier post. Your comments are remarkable given that you particularly have cause to remember the names of Lords Taylor of Blackburn, Truscott, Snape and Moonie. How many of them are Asian? And have you not read the reports of the Privileges Committee?
In the side bar above is this little snippet
Launched in early 2008, Lords of the Blog encourages dialogue between the public and Members of the House of Lords.
You seem to think a dialogue consists of you telling other people, and then allowing them to comment, even though they pay your wages.
It’s not. A dialogue is something where either side can ask questions.
Lord Blagger as you know you are more than welcome to ask questions on this blog but perhaps if you want a different answer you should ask a different question now and again…
Some interesting briefing papers,even about B.Ashton’s difficulties with a new EU Foreign policy.
Carl.H: I apologise for any problems you have had accessing the briefing papers. I believe all of the links are now working.
Please let me know (info@constitutionsoc.org.uk) if you have any further problems and I will email them to you directly.
Even I get lost ! What ?
“2.7 The explanatory note from the Bill states that candidates must achieve more than 50% of the votes in the count – either at the initial counting stage or, if necessary, at a further counting stage – in order to be elected. The Bill therefore anticipates that the total number of votes counted in each round will be diminishing, so that the winner in final round need not necessarily have polled more than 50% of all votes cast in the election”
Yes actually I do understand, with a good deal of thought but…. And the Blandville example is something that appears so complex the only plausible thing a man in street will say about that result would be that someone fixed it.
There is no proportionality in AV, nor will there be a compulsion to vote. Older generations who have marked their papers with a “x” for years maybe confused. The numbers “1” , “2”, “3” maybe illegible, some older people with bad arthritis may not be able to do it at all.
The example in the AV briefing paper “The Blandville Election” makes it clear that although AV is more complex the result appears the same as FTFP.
The concept that Able gets 50% of the vote after all second, third preferences are taken into account is absurd. Possible votes were 200,000 out of 40,000 people and you then use the 40k as the 100% mark but ignore the 200k to get 50%.
What a load of tosh ! Talk about make statistics fit ! It so reminds me of this:
So you want a day off. Let’s take a look at what you are asking for. There are 365 days per year available for work. There are 52 weeks per year in which you already have 2 days off per week, leaving 261 days available for work. Since you spend 16 hours each day away fron work, you have used up 170 days, leaving only 91 days available. You spend 30 minutes each day on coffee break which counts for 23 days each year, leaving only 68 days available. With a 1 hour lunch each day, you used up another 46 days, leaving only 22 days available for work. You normally spend 2 days per year on sick leave. This leaves you only 20 days per year available for work. We are off 5 holidays per year, so your available working time is down to 15 days. We generously give 14 days vacation per year which leaves only 1 day available for work and I’ll be darned if you are going to take that day off!
Not even the one day, Carl, since 52 x 7 = 364.
OK, I know that was a bit of fun, try this bit of arithmetic:
Assume each employee is paid for a 7 hour day, 35 hour week at the min wage rate of £5.93 per hour. The public sector worker takes an annual average of 9.7 days of sick leave, the private sector worker takes 6.5 days. There are approx 6.05 million employed in the public sector.
How much more per hour does the public sector employee cost the taxpayer over the private sector one?
(Figures are correct as far as poss)
Hi Alexandra, the problem appeared fixed not long after my post. Thank you for your concern and offer.
Carl.H,
I am glad the link to the briefing paper worked. With regards to your comments:
The Blandville example is hypothetical. It was used to highlight the potential for surprising results under AV because of the effect of preference transfer.
It is not claimed that Abel received 50% of first, second and third preferences. Only that he received more first and second preferences than the winning candidate.
The number 40,000 is used to calculate the final percentage of votes allocated to the winning candidate because this is the number of people who turned out to vote in the election. When it is claimed that MPs would necessarily have more than 50% support from their constituents under AV, people are referring to 50% of voters, not 50% of all preferences. This is legitimate because, under AV, a transferred preference is considered to be of equal weight to a first preference. If it were calculated according to total preferences, the final percentage of support would of course be even lower.
But the first note states:
“2.7 The explanatory note from the Bill states that candidates must achieve more than 50% of the votes in the count.”
The entire votes in the count are infact a potential 200,000.
Mr. Abel received 28,150 after all preferences were counted. The total number of votes were 85,800 (all preferences).
“Only that he received more first and second preferences than the winning candidate.”
Er…He was the winning candidate wasn`t he ?
Well…NO looking further down the page you can see second preferences are ranked higher so Baker comes in as the winner getting 52%.
Confused ? You will be !
So Abel out of the total preferences gets 28,150 whilst Baker gets 27,500 but that doesn`t count.
First we eliminate poor ole Ellis who didn`t get enough and just add his 2nd preferences to the totals.
Still no one has 50% so we eliminate Donald and give his 2nd preferences to the total.
We forget about Abel, Baker and Charles 2nd preferences…They don`t count.
So now Baker, who had less first preferences and less total preferences wins, I`m confused, feel conned and hope that whomever invented this system doesn`t work for Inland Revenue.
I want to come back to this, if I may.
I feel as though the AV exercise, referendum will be a waste of money and a waste of time. It is also not what democracy wants. From what I have seen statistically and in the media, the Tories will be against as will Labour. We do know this system isn`t what the Lib-Dems want either, they want PR and in comparison with this shoddy shocking system that at least looks preferable than AV.
AV appears a complex system where someone gets to choose which votes are counted and which are not. We`ve seen above and in the briefing papers that whom you expect to win, has most votes overall and in first preference doesn`t actually win. It appears a system that conives against a favourite.
Are we really going to put to the electorate a choice of second rate system, that is complex and seem`s unfair rather than something some politicians really want and the public MAY favour ?
AV is not the way to go, it is something I would expect from a Company called Bodgit & Scarper. I fully understand compromises but somethings just cannot come in that bracket, putting a plaster on a broken leg isn`t the way to go, if you feel something needs mending.
If you act on AV now how long until you can get what you really think the public needs ? These are Constitutional matters, they are not going to appear frequently or shouldn`t. If you cannot get the system that you feel is right, is fair, is democratic then please do not settle for a bodged system that MAYBE worse than the original.
It’s a reasonable response to Philip Norton’s statement that the Blog is for the Lords to tell people things, and then allow them to comment.
Philip clearly doesn’t want people doing what it says in the side bar, entering into a dialogue. That’s a two way conversation.
However Beccy you are not towing the public line for the blog, that its only Lords who can raise issues. Check with your colleague.
If the policy has changed, the blog will be a better place.
However, as for raising the questions, the problem is that the Lords won’t answer them. So it seems a reasonable approach to keep answering them.
Here’s one, and if you find the answer, I would be very surprised.
Why has money been handed out for second homes with no checks on what is a second home?
Why did the Clerk of Parliament investigate his own handling of the above matter?
What have Lords done that means the report is a state secret on the grounds that it would bring the Lords into disrepute?
None of these questions have been answered. In fact they have been studiously avoided.
Now, if you think these questions aren’t relevant for the Lords, then I think you are wrong. Perhaps you could explain why if that is the case.
Lord Balgger: Hmm, how shall I put this kindly? Of those who post comments, you may not be the obvious candidate to complain about the absence of dialogue. Your approach to dialogue reminds me of the Monty Python sketch on having an argument. As some readers have pointed out before, you do not appear to grasp the nature of Blogs and you certainly adopt a rather eccentric view of what constitutes a dialogue. I doubt if few people would regard your practice of simply posting the same comments, time and again, in response to posts and then ignoring or failing to comprehend any of the responses you receive as constituting ‘a dialogue’. Perhaps you are confusing dialogue with a rant? You keep repeating the same tired points, not only about the Lords but also about referendums (there is no plural in Latin for referendum) by proxy, which you may have noticed has not elicited a squeak of support from anyone. Nor is there little point in making ludicrous claims about what I said (or rather didn’t say) about Lords Truscott etc. You may wish to spend a little more time actually reading and absorbing what others write rather than keep repeating endlessly the same points.
Lord Norton: I completely support your comments.
I notice today that yet another file is off to the CPS.
Now, what’s the betting that one of your colleagues is in the list? Perhaps one that the Lords said, pay back the cash, and all is OK.
ie. You really need to sort out the stable and clear it out.
That you’ve failed and we have a drip drip drip of more corruption and money grabbing shows that you really don’t want to do anything about it.
The conclusion. Two sorts of peers (or MPS)
Those on the take, and those that let them.