Electoral Reform
An interesting story has slipped under the radar in this week of familial money-laundering. Junior Justice Minister Michael Wills has responded to the recently published report on electoral reform, and is calling for a discussion on the issue. He believes that the system should stay the same.*
I believe there are two main problems with the electoral system (in General Elections). First is the clear problem that Labour’s landslide 1997 victory was won with a small fraction of the support of the electorate. Sole power is expressed by minority views. The second problem is the huge disparity in constituencies which benefits Labour unfairly.**
No electoral system is perfect. Either minority parties get majorities, or minority party govern together with no accountability. I used to like the idea of issue-by-issue alliances, which would be a genuinely positive parliamentary system, but I think a consistent executive government would have to exist outside Parliament. I don’t want a president, and the alternative is a succession of unaccountable coalitions. I have come to the conclusion that a proportional system would lead to damaging unaccountability; unfair majorities are preferable.
But in grudgingly accepting a First-Past-The-Post system, I must urge for reform within it. Accountable government is good: if the public mood shifts significantly against the incumbent party, another will be returned victorious on election day. We are currently witnessing this system working in practice, as the Tories continue their ascent to victory next year. But a genuine problem still rests in the nature of parliamentary constituencies: in short, Labour stands to benefit. To win a majority in the Commons, the Tories need a lead of about 10% over Labour. Labour need to poll equally with the Tories to gain a majority. This is unjust and unreasonable. If we are to side with a FPTP system, it is vital that we ensure the system is robustly fair.
I am encouraged by this new found desire for debate on an issue Labour last floated over a decade ago - coincidentally, they were looking for a LibDem coalition then, too. This is a Pandora’s Box: unless the government has a plan to sign away their 10-point election boost, the “debate” they are encouraging should be met with nothing more than cynicism. What a shame if this issue is ignored because of fraudulent self-interest once again.
I will soon be writing more on this issue on my campaigns site, The Fifth Way. Expect campaigning to follow.
- - -
*The pithy retort here would refer to Labour supporting a debate on the issue of electoral reform where they like the status quo, but oppose a debate on the issue of Europe where they want a change.
**I also consider the West Lothian Question an electoral issue, but that is another discussion.
I also consider the West Lothian Question an electoral issue, but that is another discussion.
Quite so, if Scots didn’t elect MPs we wouldn’t have this problem.
“Quite so, if Scots didn’t elect MPs we wouldn’t have this problem.”
Not quite that simple, given that the Westminster Parliament still holds legislative authority over certain issues, rather than Edinburgh. I believe the generally held belief among those that actually care is that it would be better to stop Scottish MPs voting on England-only issues, or devolve that responsibility an an English parliament.
The issue isn’t that simple. It is an electoral issue, but one that has its own difficulties in tackling and that would be a distraction for the argument.