Welcome to the New Statesman website. Please sign in or register to participate in the conversation.

This ugly AV mess shows politics at their worst

All three main parties are acting out of narrow interests.

David Davis was not among the ten Tory rebels in the vote on AV last night, which passed by 328 votes to 269. They were, with thanks to Andrew Sparrow:

Brian Binley (Northampton South), Peter Bone (Wellingborough), Bill Cash (Stone), Christopher Chope (Christchurch), Philip Davies (Shipley), Philip Hollobone (Kettering), David Nuttall (Bury North), Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills), Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) and Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight).

But Davis, who is a leading figure on the Tory right and opposed to AV, made a very interesting comment indeed about the redrawing of constituency boundaries which is to come with the bill. He said:

The Deputy Prime Minister [Nick Clegg] presented this bill as something designed to increase the respect of the people for the political system that we work under. I think the people might respect us more if we admitted some of the real reasons for what we are doing. Of course there is party advantage implicit in what we are talking about.

Davis is surely right. And the Tories are not alone. It is true that Labour backed the Alternative Vote at the election, and now is opposed to it, albeit on the semi-honourable grounds that it will reduce the number of Labour seats. As the Independent's Andrew Grice has reported this morning, there is a plan to kill off the bill in the House of Lords. The Liberal Democrat leadership, meanwhile, seems willing to sacrifice its glittering prize of electoral reform for power. We were told the referendum is the glue that holds the coalition together but there is a good chance the bill may fall later in the autumn, or that the referendum itself, with the opposition of the main party in government, will be lost.

And all the while, true proportional representation seems more distant than ever. For electoral reformers, it is a pretty sorry state of affairs.

Tags: David Davis  Electoral Reform

18 comments

Joe Bauwens's picture

Reforming boundaries does not have to mean making constituencies bigger; it would also be possible to make them smaller. This would make most (if not all) constituencies into marginals, as it would become possible to win a seat on a smaller swing; giving us a parliament closer to voter intentions (and more friendly to independent candidates). Strangely no party seems to favour this...

Bill Kristol-Balls's picture

"The Liberal Democrat leadership, meanwhile, seems willing to sacrifice its glittering prize of electoral reform for power"

Strange comment seeing as without the Lib Dems holding power of some description, reform will never happen.

firsttimer's picture

Bill Kristol-Balls,

"Strange comment seeing as without the Lib Dems holding power of some description, reform will never happen."

How so? Labour offered reform to AV in their manifesto at the last election.

Daragh McDowell's picture

@BKB Agreed - James seems to be bending over backwards to find something to blame the Lib Dems for. I particularly like the line

"We were told the referendum is the glue that holds the coalition together but there is a good chance the Bill may fall later in the autumn, or that the referendum itself, with the opposition of the main party in government, will be lost."

Essentially saying - the Lib Dems entered the coalition to try and secure electoral reform, but electoral reform may be undone by future events, so why are they staying in the coalition in the present? Logically absurd nonsense. The Staggers new editorial line of blaming and shaming the Lib Dems at every possible opportunity is getting more ridiculous by the day.

Daragh McDowell's picture

@firsttimer - I'm afraid your screen name is rather apt for the question. Perhaps you'd like to take a look at the 1997 Labour election manifesto and its section on electoral reform...

alan's picture

If this is whats meant by "new politics" frankly they can shove it,FPTP isn't perfect but compared to the horse trading that's gone on in smoky rooms I'd have that any day of the week.

Bill Kristol-Balls's picture

@ firsttimer - What Daragh said

@ alan - Smoky rooms? Really? Didn't you hear about the ban?

Lou's picture

As one MP said in the house yesterday, a Tory one no less, when people are facing cuts, loss of jobs and benefits, it is a disgrace that 100 million pounds can be found to finance this piece of electoral reform that on the whole, no-one wants and as Clegg once said, is a miserable little compromise.

Sue Davies's picture

Alan's reaction, which is understandably widely shared, is precisely the outcome of the unprincipled way in which the LibDems have behaved.

Had the LibDems followed their manifesto committments and professed values, they could not have gone into coalition with the Tories (except of course the crypto tory orange bookers). The overt chasing after power, regardless of contradiction with the policies expressed to the voters, is precisely the reason why the popularity of changing the voting system has gone down the plug-hole.

Hoist by their own petard, methinks!

Robert Taggart's picture

The equalisation of parliamentary seats will disadvantage Liebour... so what be wrong with that ?... FEW !

yoctobarryc's picture

I see! So when people oppose on legitimate grounds a new voting system, they are condemned as "acting out of narrow interests".

But when Labour seeks to block the bill because it will reduce their number of seats, they are acting in a "semi-honourable" way. Because they are acting out of noble principle.

Typical NS bullshit: whenever someone disagrees with commentators here, they are invariably dismissed as being deceitful, dishonest or lying.

You never can acknowledge that someone else's point of view is legitimate and might be even stronger than your own?

frances smith's picture

i'm not sure that the equalisation of the size of parliamentary seats will disadvantage labour. no one actually knows whats going to happen, though on a simplistic analysis, that notices that there are a lot of small labour seats in wales it appears that way.

but actually one of the problems for the tories in winning an overall majority is that because most of their voters are wealthy they tend to be concentrated in smaller geographical areas. so there is a higher density of conservative voters in wealthy areas, like the south east. but there are also quite a lot of conservative mps with fairly small seats, above 60,000, but below 70,000.

what seems to have happened is that as the number of very small inner cities labour constituencies has reduced, there has been a shift of high density labour voter areas into what were once marginal seats, so they then become more easily winnable for labour. so though they may lose an inner city seat they gain as the seats in the suburbs become more labour. if thats make sense.

which is why labour needs just a small swing in its favour to win.

and the possibility is that this will continue, and what were one marginal conservative seats will become margninal labour seats as the small inner city seats get broken up and redistributed.

so don't get too excited tory boys, one of the downside of thatcher's policy of enriching the already wealthy, is that they are more concentrated in very expensive areas.

it is thatcherism that has ruined your hopes of ever winning again,there's a downside to increasing inequality.

Hugh Markey's picture

This is the era of pork barrel politics. Even the Green Party are getting in on the act. Referendum, anyone?

Equal Shares

Tom's picture

"Semi-honourable grounds" - who are you trying to fool ? yourself or your readers?

Labour are opposing it because they are a bunch of unprincipled ******

Still, if the rferendum is won, I will know never to give a second prefernec to Labour, if it is lost - good, it buries AV for ever and the next reform will be STV.

Geraint's picture

No Tom, Labour are opposing it because of the gerrymanding the ConDems are doing.

Labour are going to be supporting the actual YES campaign.

Nick's picture

I see nothing what so ever wrong with Labour blocking AV, seat equalisation, and boundary change if it is likely to damage our prospects of success at election time. In a true democracy you would vote for what you think is right, but the Tories and Liberals threw democracy away along with their so called manifestos and promises, they also awarded themselves a five year term. The electorate didn't give mass approval to the Tories; even less the Liberals, this lot should stop pretending it has the approval of the country; it hasn't.

Upon my return to work today, I saw the DWP's plans for cuts in October, it's diabolical and will cause untold misery for many; a true measure of how low this lot are prepared to go.

Labour should do what ever it takes to make sure this shower doesn't get an easy ride. It's an all at battle now, whatever it takes it what we need to do. We need to do whatever is right for the advantage of the party.

Nick's picture

Needless to say, upon reading the bill in its current stage, it's far from straightforward. As always the draftsmen get to work and make it all sound rather complicated. The system of counting appears to involve a continuous round of eliminations until the right calculation is arrived at.

The boundary changes involve measuring consituencies in square kilometres, with exceptions being made for geographically diverse areas. How on earth this will work in certain places is hard to follow.

It will take an age to sort out the boundaries, with a great deal of argument as to where the line should be drawn.

I note that there is limited provision in the bill for the promotion of public awareness. An extract states:

"The Electoral Commission must take whatever steps they think appropriate to promote public
awareness about the referendum and how to vote in it."

There is also limited provision for "encouraging participation".

The proposed questions are simple enough on the ballot paper, but are the voters going to really have it all explained to them? Are the Commission going to explain it all in simple easy to understand terms with impartiality I ask myself?

If this does go through to the next stage, I only hope the voter is made aware of what they are voting for with no undue influence from any party. I doubt it somehow, I can just see Cameron and Clegg telling us how it's 'ever so fair'.

Post new comment

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Latest tweets