The Commons comes back today to begin a debate on constitutional proposals that will reshape political life in Britain in a way not seen for decades. The Queen loses her power to dissolve parliament as fixed terms come in. British citizens will lose nearly a tenth of their elected representatives. And the way we elect MPs will change if the Alternative Vote system is adopted after a referendum.
The decision to devote the new session of parliament to constitutional politics will divide all parties as MPs and the public come to terms with the full implications of these proposals. ‘Whatever is, is right’ wrote the poet Alexander Pope as he defined early Toryism 300 years ago. Now under David Cameron, the Conservatives have become the party of unconvinced and unconvincing upheaval as the prime minister embarks on a political road full of pitfalls. His Commons majority is uncertain. A plebiscite next year risks becoming a vote on the popularity of the government’s cuts policy rather than a calm, rational decision on the merits of the constitutional proposals.
After the ConDem government coalition we are likely to see a ConLab parliamentary coalition, as MPs cannot be controlled by whips on what are traditionally free votes on these matters. Cameron’s constitutional moment follows Labour’s piecemeal reforms. These failed to satisfy the constitutional reform purists while simultaneously opening up new areas of contestation. Thus we have messes like the decision of a Scottish minister to release a convicted terrorist whom Robin Cook, as foreign secretary engaging his word on behalf of the United Kingdom, had pledged would see out his days in a UK prison.
We have the curious sight of the unelected House of Lords with more members than the lower House. England has no intermediary level of representative legislatures such as exists in Commonwealth countries like Canada or Australia, or in the US where there are four times as many elected officials in relation to the population than Britain.
We have a fused executive and legislature. Reducing the number of MPs will tilt the balance to the executive. The idea of equalising all MPs’ seats into neat little squares with an identical number of voters appears reasonable. But like Chesterton’s rolling English road with its swerves and contours – so different from the straight lines used by English imperialists to draw boundaries in Africa – the British constituency is a result of deep localisms that are indeed eccentric and defy rational mathematics but which make sense.
The real worry is that in many constituencies including my own of Rotherham more than one in ten citizens is not registered to vote. The bill will enshrine this disenfranchisement as it allows no time and affords no resources to get our citizens registered to vote in the new constituencies. Nor does the bill allow time for consultation with local people about the new boundaries. This will cause anger and fester for years to come.
On AV the logic is even more curious. AV was spatchcocked into the Labour manifesto at the last minute by Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson. It has never been debated, let alone agreed by the Labour party, whether grassroots activists, unions, or MPs. It was overwhelmingly rejected by voters who instead gave their confidence to Conservative candidates who stood on an anti-AV platform. The Lib Dems who wanted more radical electoral reform lost seats for the first time in fifty years.
Having supported Mr Cameron and said ‘no’ to AV in May 2010 voters are now being told by Mr Cameron they can say Yes in May 2011. Nor is it clear if the voting system is liberal AV where voters are free to vote for just one or two candidate or compulsory AV where a vote in invalid unless cast for all candidates including the BNP, UKIP and other extremist or fringe parties.
The referendum is proposed for the same day as the important Scottish, Welsh and big city elections next May. Parliament should reject this. A sound principle in countries where referendums are more common is that they are separate independent consultations and not mixed up with elections of individual candidates to run Scotland, Wales, Manchester or Bristol. It would be bizarre to be campaigning in the morning for the Tories or Labour to run a city and then in the afternoon there is a musical chairs as bitter foes make common cause for or against AV.
The proposition that AV is progressive defies all rational examination; AV is actually worse than a simple majority election. It allows BNP supporters to have a say over who becomes an MP even if they cannot muster much support for their own obnoxious politics. It allows the ousting of MPs targeted by the media as hate figures in the manner of Tony Benn in the 1980s. AV in Australia has provided no stability. AV in the most recent election in Australia has given Labour seven per cent fewer votes than the opposition but the same number of seats. Fair? Democratic? AV has kept Australian Labour out of power while the British system has allowed Labour to hold power for 30 years since 1945, just five fewer than the Tories.
The one merit in these proposals is they will bring the Commons back to life. I will happily go into the lobby, with or without my whips’ support, with Conservative and even Lib Dem MPs ready to defeat this Democracy Reduction bill or so amend it to make it conform with democratic rules as commonly understood.
Every MP can play a part in this crucial debate about the future of our democracy when these constitutional measures being their passage through parliament today.