I’m about to admit something that is likely to make you hate me. It’s something that puts me into a very small and lonely minority within the Labour Party.
It’s not that I like Peter Mandelson.
It’s that I’m a supporter of electoral reform.
Anyone from outside the Labour Party reading this may be a little startled. Electoral systems are a bit geeky they’ll think, but surely they’re unlikely to inspire actual vitriol? Not so. My colleagues don’t understand it. My friends think I’m mad to ‘out’ myself in this way. The fact is that the vast majority of Labour and trade union activists are solidly in favour of our first past the post system for Westminster elections. Even my wife, when told this is what my latest column would be about, rolled her eyes in despair – though as she’s a candidate in the European elections, she may have a point.
I’ve always been a supporter of change. It’s not just the practical points that are always cited – the 1951 and 1974 elections, where the party with the most votes lost the election, or the breakdown of parliamentary constituencies that shows that in reality there are only 100 constituencies that really matter. It’s not the thousands of wasted votes, the electoral deserts and the one-party states, or the fact that many MPs take a boundary review more seriously than an election. For me it’s about how our voting system shapes our political culture and the politics we get as a result of it.
Over the last few years I’ve come to think, unfortunately, that there are some quite substantial problems with our political system and culture. Take a historical analysis of Tony Blair, or a contemporary analysis of David Cameron. Both had or have achieved the leadership of their parties. One has been and the other, if the polls are true, may one day be prime minister. And yet both Blair and Cameron, if he does make it, will have achieved the highest office in the land without really knowing what they want to do with it. Tony had some great potential ideas – public service reform, cementing the UK’s relationship into Europe etc. – but they emerged after 1997 and there was never one overriding priority. Cameron will follow a similar path. To be able to get to the top without really knowing why you’ve done it just doesn’t suggest to me that things are working as they should.
It also concerns the deep alienation and, too often, the contempt that so many people feel for politics and politicians. Sometimes our political debate just doesn’t seem to reflect the political reality at all. Take the recent wave of job losses or the protests over foreign workers, for instance. How often did you hear a proper discussion of the trade-off between employment protection and job creation, with both sides admitting there’s a balance to be struck between the two? Instead we get one side saying ‘British workers are easier to sack’ and the other vaguely protesting that flexible labour markets are good for the economy. They’re both right – so why not admit this and get into the detail? Our current system just doesn’t seem to properly reflect the necessary range of viewpoints it needs to in order to function effectively. It also leads us to an obsession with short-term poll leads which favour quick-wins and media-friendly initiatives at the expense of better, well-evolved policy.
My hope for a change in the voting system is that it would act as a shot of adrenaline into our political system, changing its culture, its language, and hopefully its results. I know it’s unlikely to happen, and that I’m putting far too much faith in one reform. But I honestly believe it’s what would benefit UK politics more than anything else, so I’m destined to tread this lonely path.
I agree that reform of the electoral system could be a lifesaver for our political system. But the wrong system, like the wrong medicine, could be fatal.
We need a fair voting system where every vote counts, not just those in the Marginals . A system that does not lead to a multitude of small Parties, and one that tackles the issue of safe seats. A system that encourages independent-minded MPs, and does something to address the power of the whips. A system that tackles the dilemma – ‘I want to vote for that party but not for their candidate’
We need to vote both for the Party we want to form the Government, and at the same time, for the candidate we want to represent us.
In practice this could be much simpler than has so far been suggested.
Have you considered how much could be achieved by a reform of the way Parliament conducts its own votes?
The reform I have in mind achieves many of the goals of PR without a change to the General Election voting system.
MPs get elected as party candidates in uneven size constituencies with different levels of support, but when they vote on a Government Bill they each have one vote. This simple arrangement leads to the unfair disparities, for which we blame the FPTP system.
When MPs vote on Government bills, the MPs of the each party should have the value of their vote adjusted so that collectively they only exercise the same percentage of the vote as they won in the General election.
In practice this means a fractional vote for each MP when it comes to votes on Government Bills.
The value of their vote would be the ratio of total percentage votes gained in the general election to total percentage seats won.
In Free votes, votes would still be on the basis of one vote each MP.
Swipe card voting and recording makes this voting process simple.
This reform achieves many of the goals of PR without a change to the General Election voting system.
A more Candidate focussed electoral system.
If the above reform was implemented, the FPTP electoral system could then be immensely improved by a small reform – giving everyone two votes, the first for the party of Government, the second for the MP for the constituency. The result of the first vote would influence the MPs’ voting power, as above.
Separating the candidate and party votes results in a much more Candidate focussed electoral system. This solves the dilemma of how to vote for your party to form the Government when you don’t want to support your party’s local candidate. MPs cease to be purely party appointees.
It leads to more independent minded MPs.
This very simple change, easily understood by everyone could be introduced without losing the simplicity of the FPTP system.
see http://www.dprvoting.org