The Politics of Electoral Reform - Friday 30th July 2010
On 22nd July 2010 a bill was introduced in Parliament providing for a referendum on the voting system used to elect MPs to the House of Commons and a reduction in the number of MPs, together with an equalisation of the sizes of constituencies. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill provides for an asymmetrical linkage between these two sets of proposals:
* assuming the Bill is passed, the boundary changes take effect at the time of the next general election whatever the result of the referendum
* even if there is a ‘yes’ vote in the referendum, Alternative Voting will not be introduced unless the boundary changes have been made. Alternative Voting is explained in more detail here.
- Is a referendum even necessary?
The Bill embodies a central plank – arguably the central plank – of the Coalition agreement.
The Conservatives appear to believe that the equalisation of constituency sizes and an accompanying reduction in the number of MPs will tilt the electoral landscape permanently in their favour. The LibDems seem to have settled for AV as a second best (in place of the Single Transferable Voting they campaigned for in their manifesto) but still a valuable prize likely to increase their representation in future Parliaments.
The agreement to have a referendum on AV was a compromise reached, possibly because the Conservatives had to offer some concession on electoral reform to secure the agreement of the LibDems. Now, however, both the Conservative and LibDem leaderships place a very high priority on getting these proposals into law as soon as possible.
Why consider AV?
- the LibDems may believe that AV makes it more likely that they will be a necessary partner in future coalition governments; also that boundary changes will make it more likely in future that the Conservatives will be able to form a government of their own. If this is right, it is essential from the LibDem’s perspective to hold an early referendum, before the boundary changes can be implemented
- the Conservatives may believe that AV will work to their disadvantage, but that this will be outweighed by the benefit gained from equalising the sizes of constituencies. It is probable that the Conservatives would prefer a ‘no’ vote in the referendum, but are also alive to the danger that a ‘no’ vote will make it less likely that the coalition will survive for a full five-year term. That may be why the Bill accelerates the normal Boundary Review process by removing the Boundary Commissions’ powers to call local Public Enquiries.
Both parties may believe that there is some general advantage in the mere holding of a referendum on political reform, because it sends a message to the electorate that the Coalition is serious about ‘cleaning up politics’ – even if the actual subject of the proposed referendum is not central to most voters’ concerns.
The Bill is being put through its various stages with the maximum possible speed. The First Reading (i.e. publication) was crammed into the last few days of the Parliamentary Session just ended, without any pretence of pre-legislative scrutiny.
The Second Reading will be on 6th September, the first day of the new two-week mini-Session before the Commons again adjourns for the Party Conference recess.
We will....reduce the number of MPs in Parliament (p65)...A Conservative government will ensure every vote will have equal value by introducing ‘fair vote’ reforms to equalise the size of constituency electorates, and conduct a boundary review to implement these changes within five years (p67)...We support the first-past-the-post system for Westminster elections because it gives voters the chance to kick out a government they are fed up with (p67)
Change politics and abolish safe seats by introducing a fair, more
proportional voting system for MPs. Our preferred Single Transferable Vote system gives people the choice between candidates as well as parties. Under the new system, we will be able to reduce the number of MPs by 150 (pp 87-8)
Referenda, held on the same day, for moving to the Alternative Vote for elections to the House of Commons and to a democratic and accountable Second Chamber (chapter 9:2)
The results of the 2005 and 2010 General Elections show the extent to which the electoral system appears to be biased in Labour's favour:
|Share of National vote||32.4%||35.2%||36.1%
In 2005, Labour won around 780,000 more votes than the Conservatives and achieved a majority of over 150 seats. In 2010, the Conservatives won over 2 million more vote than Labour, but achieved a majority of less than 50 seats.
There are three explanations for these anomalous outcomes, two of them demographic and one behavioural:
* In England, safe Conservative seats are predominately in rural areas and generally have larger electorates than safe Labour seats, many of which are in inner cities. The discrepancy has increased in recent years as the population of many urban areas has fallen.
* Constituencies in Scotland and Wales, where Labour have many
safe seats, generally have smaller electorates than English seats.
* Turnout at General Elections is usually higher in safe Conservative seats, reflecting the social makeup of these constituencies.
The Bill will address the first two of these issues. Constituency sizes will be equalised and a disproportionate number of Scottish seats will disappear, correcting Scotland's current over-representation in the Westminster Parliament.
However even after these changes the Conservatives will still appear to be significantly underrepresented as this analysis of electoral results in two imaginary constituencies demonstrates:
Labour's unfair advantage?
Pimmshire is a safe Conservative seat with 75,000 registered voters. Voter turnout in the last General Election was 65%.
Champerstown is a safe Labour seat with 65,000 registered voters. Turnout in the last General Election was 45%.
In each constituency the winning candidate achieved 50% of the votes cast. So:
The victorious Conservative candidate in Pimmshire gained:
75,000 x 65% x 50% = 24,375 votes
While the victorious Labour candidate in Champerstown gained:
65,000 x 45% x 50% = 14,625 votes
Taking the two constituencies together, the Conservatives won 62.5% of the global vote, but won the same number of seats as Labour (one each). So the Conservatives appear to need more votes than Labour to achieve the same outcome. In this sense Conservative votes are 'less valuable' than Labour votes.
Now assume that the election is refought after a Boundary Commission review. Both seats now have 70,000 registered voters. In each constituency the winning candidate again achieves 50% of the votes cast. So:
The victorious Conservative candidate in Pimmshire gains:
70,000 x 65% x 50% = 22,750 votes
While the victorious Labour candidate in Champerstown gains:
70,000 x 45% x 50% = 15,750 votes
With equal constituency sizes, the Conservatives have still won 59% of the global vote, without gaining any advantage in parliamentary seats.
So in this imaginary example it is apparent that most of the perceived disadvantage arises from higher voter turnout, not from an inequality in constituency sizes. Only about one third of the disadvantage can be attributed to the unequal size of the two constituencies - some estimates suggest that unequal constituency size in England contributes only around 20% of the disadvantage.
Will the Bill be passed?
Labour have announced that they will oppose the Bill in its current form although, in line with their Manifesto commitment, they would have supported a 'single issue' Bill providing for a referendum on AV. Jack Straw has said that the linkage of referendum and boundary review in one Bill is 'a trick'. Labour are - understandably enough - strongly opposed to 'boundary gerrymandering' which is likely significantly to reduce their representation in future parliaments, and in particular to the proposed reduction in the number of MPs. Feelings on the issue are running high: some people on the Labour benches seem to believe that they could never win another general election under the proposed arrangements.
However the Bill will not be defeated, or substantially amended, unless there is a significant Conservative backbench revolt.
This is a possibility: many Conservative backbenchers, particularly on the right of the party, are strongly opposed to AV which they see as a 'Tory Killer'. Disconnect is focussed on the proposed referendum date, which coincides with elections to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as local government elections in parts of England. In consequence, turnout may be significantly higher in areas which are likely to vote in favour of AV.
Some Conservative - and even LibDem - backbenchers are also unhappy with the clause in the Bill which removes the Boundary Commission's ability to convene local Public Enquiries on contentious boundary changes, including the abolition of seats.
The Referendum campaign
Assuming the Bill is passed, public funds will be made available for umbrella 'yes' and 'no' campaigns in the period leading up to the referendum on 5th May. Although it is Conservative policy to oppose AV, David Cameron has made it clear that he will not play a significant role in the campaign, and it is likely that other leading Conservatives will adopt a similarly low profile, perhaps because an acrimonious campaign might increase the chances that the coalition will falter if the result of the referndum is 'no'. Rodney Leach, the veteran Euro-sceptic, has been appointed to lead the 'no' campaign at a safe distance from the leadership.
The LibDems will support the 'yes' campaign, although Nick Clegg has said that he does not expect to play a leading role. Grassroots support for AV in the LibDem Party is fairly thin: the Party has been campaigning for Proportional Representation for several decades (and AV is not a form of PR) and many Party members are beginning to speculate that a referendum on AV will reduce the likelihood of a subsequent referendum on PR, at least in the next a decade or two. Some of these tensions can be expected to manifest themselves at the LibDem Party Conference in September.
It is likely that Labour will also support the 'yes' campaign, although the extent of their commitment will depend to some extent on the result of the leadership contest. However recent events suggest there is an outside chance that Labour may boycott the campaign as a protest against the 'trick' legislation behind the referendum.
As things currently stand, most people in the Westminster Village expect that the referendum will result in a 'no' vote. The results of referenda on electoral reform in other countries support the view that when citizens are offered a new system of voting which they do not feel particularly strongly about - and in many cases do not really understand - they vote for the status quo. The counter-argument is that when people are offered an additional power - in this the ability to vote for more than one candidate - they generally take it. A good deal will depend on the campaign. The 'no' lobby is likely to base its campaign on the idea that 'a vote for AV is a vote for permanent coalition government': how well this plays with the public will depend very largely on the fortunes of the current coalition over the coming months.
A briefing paper on Alternative Voting, including worked examples to demonstrate how the system proposed in the Bill would work in practice, can be found here.
Fri, 20th August 2010
Following the Electoral Commission's confirmation of funding rules for the AV referendum campaign, we look at how this interesting campaign might evolve, and whether either camp is advantaged from the start.
Fri, 13th August 2010
Although people tend to talk about Alternative Voting as if it is a single concept, there are in fact many different variants on the AV system. Our briefing paper gives a clear explanation of the AV system currently proposed by the Government, together with worked examples.
Looking for that special someone: the enduring relationship between politicians and special advisers
Thu, 29th July 2010
We take a look at special advisers, often thought of as a recent phenomenon. However closer examination reveals that special advisers have been around as long as politicians.
Sat, 17th July 2010
On 15th July 2010 Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister became the first witness to the newly-formed Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform. The committee cross-examined Mr Clegg both on the timing and content of reform proposals.
Sun, 11th July 2010
The first weighty debate of proposals to reform the House of Lords took place on 29th June 2010. Though ignored in the media, the debate included some of the most cogently reasoned arguments for and against a move from an appointed to an elected House, with a majority of the 65 peers participating in the debate expressing concern at the prospect of the creation of 'a pale imitation of the House of Commons'.
Sat, 24th July 2010
In a further valuable contribution to the burgeoning debate on constitutional reform in general, and the codification of the British constitution in particular, a group of constitutional experts led by Stephen Hockman QC and Professor Vernon Bogdanor have called for a holistic approach to the constitution. In a paper published by JUSTICE, the group analyses the questions which need resolution before any moves can be made towards the creation of a codified constitution.
Fri, 2nd July 2010
Prompted by the recent publication of a book on the subject by Richard Gordon QC, the PR consultancy SPADA recently sponsored a debate on whether the UK now needs a written constitution. Read more, or watch a video of the debate in full.
Wed, 16th June 2010
The Rt Hon John Bercow, Speaker of the House of Commons outlined his vision of a revitalised chamber of the House of Commons. The new Parliament has seen an encouraging number of new faces in the House taking an active interest in the business of the Chamber. But what will it take to sustain that enthusiasm and reinvigorate debate in the House?
Mon, 7th June 2010
Both the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru have stated that they intend to exploit the hung parliament to their own advantage, once again putting the spotlight on the 'English question' - that Scottish and Welsh MPs may vote in Westminster on issues that affect only England, whilst English MPs have no say in relation to the deliberations of the Scottish parliament or the Welsh assembly. We look at whether there will ever be a solution to this problem.
Sat, 29th May 2010
Amid the calls for electoral reform and the coalition government's promise to put the Alternative Voting system to a referendum, we look at what difference a change to the voting system would make. Is democracy in the voting or the counting?
Tue, 18th May 2010
The European Union has been criticised in the past for failing to develop a more effective foreign policy, but the External Action Service is supposed to bring new cohesion and coherence to this area of European cooperation. However, the new High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Baroness Ashton, has already run into opposition to her plans and, although a compromise has been struck, the road ahead scarcely looks any easier.
Wed, 12th May 2010
The negotiations leading to the formation of the new coalition government have turned, in part, on the question of electoral reform. A matter of such constitutional importance should, it is argued, form part of a wider review of the constitution and should not be used merely as a political bargaining chip. Will sufficient time be given to consider the implications of change before reforms are pushed through?
Should civil servants have the tyranny of the first draft? Peter Lloyd considers the Cabinet Secretary’s “Cabinet Manual”
Thu, 6th May 2010
Peter Lloyd questions the provenance of the recently disclosed 'Cabinet Manual'. Amid suggestions that the manual might form the basis of a written constitution, he questions whether it should be for a civil servant to generate the first draft of such a fundamental document.
Sat, 1st May 2010
In a letter published in the Financial Times this week, members of The Constitution Society and the Better Government Initiative outline four basic principles of good government that could improve the legislative process. The principles are difficult to fault, and could be implemented without legislation, but the question will remain whether there is any incentive for politicians to change the way that they behave.
Tue, 13th April 2010
At a debate of the Society of Cogers on 19th April 2010, Nat le Roux, Chairman of the Trustees of the Constitution Society, argued that our problem may not lie with our constitution itself, but rather with the conduct of our politicians. He suggested that the single biggest problem of contemporary democracy - is that all politicians are terrified of losing power, because the lesson of the last 30 years is that once you’ve lost power you don’t get it back for a generation.
Mon, 26th April 2010
In an article published for the first time on the ReConstitution website, Professor Dawn Oliver argues that we should resist political pressure to reform the House of Lords by making it an elected body. She proposes abolishing the House of Lords and starting from scratch by the creation of a wholly appointed Commission for Executive Scrutiny, with proposals which chime with views expressed by Lord Bingham.
Thu, 4th March 2010
The head of the Civil Service is warning Gordon Brown not to leave Number 10 if it is unclear who has won the upcoming election. Sir Gus O’Donnell told MPs that it is “the Prime Minister’s duty not to resign” until a successor can be found.
Wed, 21st April 2010
Will the problems with Parliament be solved by the retirement of many of the worst expenses offenders and an influx of new MPs? There is a perceptible mood for change amongst voters, but will altering some of the personnel be enough to restore confidence in both Parliament and the ‘constitution’ of the United Kingdom?
Wed, 7th April 2010
Campaigners are expressing their dismay, as the government’s legal commitment to hold a referendum on reforming the electoral system looks set to be scrapped as part of the ‘wash up’.
Mon, 29th March 2010
Legendary anti-corruption campaigner Martin Bell is spearheading a campaign to make the ‘wash up’ more transparent. Mr Bell is criticizing the process, which takes place during the final days of a parliament to try and get as many of the remaining bills finished as possible, as a “stitch-up by and for the main political parties”.
Wed, 17th March 2010
A senior government minster has laid into David Cameron’s plans to reduce the number of MPs should he get into power.
Mon, 15th March 2010
The controversial libel judge at the centre of a storm over the development of privacy law in the UK has hit back at his tabloid critics. Justice Eady, who rose to notoriety after punishing the News of the World for publishing intimate photos of Formula 1 boss Max Mosely’s private life, accused tabloids of having a vested interest in stunting privacy for financial gain.
Wed, 10th March 2010
A senior Tory is expressing her support for an elected House of Lords. Margot James, a vice-chairwoman of the Conservative party, made the announcement during an interview with Reconstitution where she claimed the current system was “out of kilter”.
Mon, 8th March 2010
Academics are calling for “immediate assurances” from the government that it will implement the recently agreed Wright reforms before the end of this parliament. Dr Meg Russell of the UCL Constitution Unit warned them “this is the timetable the Commons voted for and party leaders must work together to honour that.”
Tue, 23rd February 2010
The parliamentary reform movement is split over whether the proposed Wright Reforms go far enough.
Mon, 1st February 2010
Better Government Initiative launches major report.
Mon, 1st February 2010