Return to: Home | Politics | UK Politics

Who’s afraid of electoral reform?

Published 01 February 2008

Jean Lambert says its more than time Labour got around to fulfilling its 1997 manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on PR

Labour made a manifesto commitment to reviewing the electoral system in 2001 and there have been many failed attempts to start the ball rolling. Seven years later we are presented with the review and the response from campaigners has generally been quite positive. It’s seen as being a fairly even-handed, comprehensive review of the voting systems currently used in the UK, with plenty of positive comments about Proportional Representation.

The review in fact goes so far as to demolish some of the arguments most cherished by opponents of electoral reform. And some of the conclusions of the study certainly point to an open approach to altering the first past the post system (FPTP) for the House of Commons.

For instance, the review found there was “not a difference between PR systems and FPTP in terms of delivering stable and effective government”, although it did of course recognise that “with a greater number of parties involved under PR, the political landscape can be more dynamic.” And it noted that in the experience of the UK, coalition governments can be just as stable as single-party governments.

It went on to say that “one of the main benefits of PR, and in particular STV (single transferable vote), is that voters have a greater degree of choice in elections and a greater chance of their vote counting in terms of who gets elected.”

This is a key concern of many groups. At the moment party campaign budgets are focused in swing seats, with safe constituencies being virtually ignored. If you live in a swing constituency your vote counts far more than in a neighbouring safe seat. With proportional representation everyone’s vote can make a difference.

The review also concluded that it did not find “any evidence to suggest that voters find one voting system easier or more confusing than another voting system.”

However, while these are warm words from the Ministry of Justice, the Government’s reluctance to engage with the public on this issue is clear given the lack of fanfare surrounding the release of the report. Voting matters and so do the systems used and yet there has been no attempt by the Government to ask voters about their experiences and opinions.

If the Government needed any convincing that the citizens are interested in our voting systems then they should consider the response that the Independent received in 2005 to a petition they ran calling for electoral reform. They managed to raise 40,000 signatures in just a few weeks. The I Want A Referendum on the European treaty campaign has been going for many months with a large, nationwide advertising campaign yet it has only raised 35,000 signatures.

The publishing of this review fulfils one of Labour’s 2001 commitments, but their 1997 manifesto commitment for a referendum on proportional representation is still outstanding. It is high time Gordon Brown fulfilled that pledge. The Government has dragged its feet for long enough on Lords reform – we must not have a similar delay towards serious consideration of this report.

Jean Lambert is on the management committee of www.makevotescount.org.uk. She was first elected Green Party Member of the European Parliament for London in the 1999 European elections and was re-elected in 2004. She is one of nine MEPs representing London and one of two UK Green representatives in the European Parliament.

Post this article to

7 comments from readers

Isonomia
01 February 2008 at 23:09

Where do we get this idea that voting for a political elite is democratic? "it is thought to be democratic for the offices to be assigned by lot, for them to be elected is oligarchic," (Aristotle).

A vote by the demos may be a democratic vote, but that does not mean a system whereby a political elite determines the candidates, the voting system, and indeed, whether or not they can employ their wives and mistresses, is democracy.

Democracy means rule by ordinary people, it does not mean having a choice between one or other undemocratic political party.

Indeed, the most democratic instiution we have in this country isn't parliament but the humble jury that we all respect, and does its job for next to no pay.

There is a lot to be said for developing the use of juries. Why e.g. couldn't a jury decide on issues such as MPs pay and conditions. Why not let ordinary people decide whether MPs can employ their wives and children and if so how much information is disclosed. And, why couldn't we just have a jury appoint the members of an upper house so that we don't have another wasted election where the only choice is between jumped up politicians who lie to get elected and then would have to justify their position by opposing the commons on principle.

Roland Baker
02 February 2008 at 15:01

The Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, Secretary of State for the Home Department received a letter dated 25 October 1998, signed by the late Rt Hon Lord Jenkins of Hillhead OM in his proper behoof and on behalf of the late Lord Alexander of Weedon QC, Baroness Gould of Potternewton, Sir John Chilcot GCB (a Privy Councillor in 2004) and David Lipsey Esq.

Does it normally take Jack Straw nearly 10 Years to answer his letters? Or does he just wait until his correspondents have died or become Privy Counsellors?

So the Government was not convinced by the Report of the Independent Commission on the Voting System? The alternative vote plus top-up meant to retain the constituency link with a modicum of balanced incentives to make the elector's vote worthwhile and ensure cohesive goverment with identifiable advocacy from named representatives. It was the boldest reform since 1688 and superior to Rotten Boroughs where votes turn on electoral spending using money doubtfully obtained.

Jack Straw shows the same contempt for the dead in his belated response to the late Rt Hon Lord Jenkins of Hillhead as James Purnell did in helping Cherie Bliar to sign and auction a copy of the report into David Kelly's death for Labour Party funds. Purnell's mastery of spin over substance by subsequently faking himself into a photograph to make it look as though he was doing his job instead of actually doing it, seems to be the example Straw has followed.

I do not need over 160 pages to tell Straw what to do. Look at countries that respect workers (like Sweden) and use their voting system. Or look at countries that have recognised social partnerships (like France) and try their two-round system.

Anne Palmer
02 February 2008 at 22:59

Labour doesn't "DO" Referendums. It is scared to. It does however , break Manifesto Promises. Will that do?

A Williams
04 February 2008 at 13:01

Why not replace the House of Lords with a House of Juriors. In the same way jurys are appopinted to hear and decide upon criminal cases, jurors could be appointed to review new legislation from the House of Commons. A new jury could review each proposed bill. They could also annually review the pay and expences of MPs and decide what changes are required.

The one problem will PR voting for MPs is that finalises the move from voting for an individual to represent you, to voting for a Political Party. The next honest move from there would be to directly vote for the Prime Minister rather than letting MPs appoint a PM.

Jane Greene
04 February 2008 at 13:48

MPs don't appoint prime ministers. The prime minister is appointed by the monarch. The monarch appoints the leader of the largest party. So when you do elect MPs you are in effect electing the PM.

A Williams
04 February 2008 at 14:58

When voting for an MP we are told we are selecting our prefered individual to represent us, although in truth I suspect most of us are either chosing the Political Party we prefer or the PM we want. We really should think about seperating the vote for MPs from the vote for PM.

While the monach may have the right to refuse to appoint the Leader of the largest party, I suspect it would be a huge step forward in the cause of Republicanism if the monach ever tried to use it today.

abcdefg
11 February 2008 at 22:43

Labour and Lib Dems aren't interested in 'real democracy'. Here in Cornwall the Lib Dem elite are forcing a Unitary Council on us even though 80% of people voted against the idea in a local vote. They also seem happy to reduce representation down from the present 280 or so local Counsellors to under 100 in this centralising of power in the Duchy. Now Labour have put back local elections to this new council to May 2009 - a month 'after' it comes into being! And they wonder why people are so uninterested in voting - what's the point.