Tag Archives: Constitutional Reform

6 days is all it takes to tear up an unwritten constitution

So we have a Tory-Lib Dem coalition. Masses has been written about all the pros and cons of this, and I may return to some more themes in a later post. But for the moment I want to focus on the constitutional reform issues that have been thrown up over these last 6 days.

Yesterday night it looked like all the coalition deal would entail would be a referendum on AV to replace First Past the Post. AV is not proportional (see this for an explanation), so I shrugged and groaned, and feared the Lib Dems had sold out. Then this morning on The Guardian’s live blog:

9.57am: The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg says that the Conservatives have given the Lib Dems proportional representation … in the House of Lords.

There will be an elected second chamber, voted in using proportional representation, according to Kuenssberg. If correct, that’s another Tory compromise that might not go down well with a number of backbenchers.

This news however does not feature on the BBC’s list of constitutional changes in the coalition deal.

PR in the House of Lords makes things very interesting and – above and beyond the voting system – would fundamentally change the balance of power between the House of Lords and House of Commons. The Parliament Act would cease to work as it does currently as an elected Lords would have gained considerably in terms of legitimacy. An AV-elected Commons and a PR elected Lords would almost certainly create some kind of perennial power sharing arrangement, and a complicated (although welcome) new balance of power between the two chambers.

This sort of issue is at the very heart of any country’s constitutional arrangements and yet, it seems, a deal has been struck on this in a matter of 6 short days. Remarkable (if, of course, it proves to be true).

[UPDATE at 1828]
This is the text of the coalition deal:

We agree to establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with draft motions by December 2010. It is likely that this bill will advocate single long terms of office. It is also likely there will be a grandfathering system for current peers. In the interim, lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.

The long non-renewable terms part is interesting, hence electing 1/3 of the Lords each time, and for 15 year terms or something like that. Could be interesting.

Email This Post Print This Post

Election reform was not going to happen in the late 1990s, so stop bemoaning things now

Blair - CC / Flickr

Blair - CC / Flickr

As coalition negotiations endure between Tories and Lib Dems there’s much bemoaning the chance to reform the UK’s election system supposedly missed by Tony Blair in the years immediately after 1997.

If only Blair had been bold then, we would not be in the mess we’re in today goes the refrain, a line most stridently defended by staunch Lib Dems like my parents and, interestingly, by Timothy Garton Ash in Die Zeit (end of page 1, in German).

Just think a little about the situation Blair faced in those heady days with a majority of 150+. He knew Labour could win a couple more elections from that point, hence he had no incentive whatsoever to change the system, and indeed a bunch of Labour MPs who would have lost their seats that way had an incentive against reform.

In short Blair had an idea of what was right – election reform – but absolutely no incentive to act upon it. To argue that the late 1990s were a missed chance is to completely ignore how games are played within political parties. Altruism alone does not lead to decisions being taken, at least not in the Labour Party.

Now the game is different. Labour needs reform if it is to have any prospect of power any time soon. So the incentive and the altruistic choice are aligned. OK, making this happen in the middle of an economic crisis and coalition talks is perhaps not too handy, but better late than never, and let’s at least be fair in our appraisal of the past.

Email This Post Print This Post

A quick guide to UK election systems of the future

Polling Station - CC / Flickr

Polling Station - CC / Flickr

I’ve talked to a number of friends, in the UK and elsewhere, about the need for a new election system in the UK. Most of my friends are politics nerds, yet I have been astounded by the lack of clear thinking about the pros and cons of the alternative sorts of election systems the UK could go to replace First Past the Post. So here’s a quick guide…

  1. Alternative Vote (AV). This is not a proportional system. The one parliamentarian, one constituency system remains, yet instead of a cross for one candidate the voter numbers candidates in turn. A winning candidate needs to get 50% of the vote. Details on Wikipedia here.
    • PROS: maintains constituency link, winning candidate needs more than 50%.
    • CONS: still impossible for smaller parties, not proportional (and can be even less proportional than FPTP – see this).

  2. Additional Member System (AMS). This is a proportional system where each voter casts 2 votes – the first for a candidate in his or her constituency, and the second vote for a party. A proportion of the parliament is then composed of constituency MPs and a proportion of party list MPs. In the German Bundestag the proportion is 1/2 – 1/2, in the National Assembly for Wales it’s 2/3 – 1/3. A vote percentage hurdle (5% in Germany) prevents extremist parties entering parliament. Details about this system here. It’s also the same sort of idea proposed by the Jenkins Report in 1998.
    • PROS: proportional system, voter marking two crosses makes it simple to understand.
    • CONS: creates two sorts of parliamentarians (constituency and list members), constituencies would need to be at least twice as large as currently.

  3. Single Transferable Vote (STV). This is a proportional system where voters rank their preferences for candidates – 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. – until they have no further choices to make, and voters can choose between different party lists and for individual candidates on those lists. Constituencies are multi-member (normally 6 to 8 members) and each party puts forward that number of candidates. The system has been used for Irish national elections since 1919. Details on the system here.
    • PROS: maximises voter choice, allows preference for individuals, maintains a broad constituency link.
    • CONS: constituencies would need to be large, system can be complex to understand.

I hope that has clarified things a little… I would personally favour STV, could live with AMS, and would even back AV if that were the only offer on the table.

And if things are still not clear, then pose your questions in the comments! :-)

[UPDATE] Political Betting has a go at explaining the different systems on offer. More long winded than my piece…

Email This Post Print This Post

Gordon Brown and AV – no, not now Gordon

Gordon Brown - CC / Flickr

Gordon Brown - CC / Flickr

At the ‘we don’t want to oust Gordon’ PLP meeting earlier this week many words were spoken about how the Prime Minister had learnt the lessons of the last week, how he was now going to be better at listening. So what news slips out today? That the Prime Minister is actively contemplating proposing the Alternative Vote system as an alternative to First Past the Post as the system to elect Westminster MPs. Why, oh, why has this been announced now? We’re barely 48 hours after a terrible election defeat for Labour – an announcement like this looks terrible tactically as Mike Smithson points out. Which members of the PLP were aware of, or indeed back, Gordon’s plan?

Continue reading →

Email This Post Print This Post