« Haven't we covered this already? | Main | The Winning Essay »
June 15, 2005
More on yesterday's debate
Malcolm has already covered yesterday's Westminster Hall debate in some depth, so I'll try to be brief.
I am told by everyone that was present that Harriet came across atrociously. I thus got very excited by the prospect of writing something scathing (and insightful, of course). Sadly, the Hansard transcript doesn't make this very clear, so I'll have to work with what's there.
If you're not too bothered about what Ms Harman said, it went along the lines of "This government is always open to ideas of how to fulfil our various vacuous statements like 'your country better', 'your government cares about you, honest' ", etc. etc. In short: arguments were put to Harriet that PR was a Good Thing, Harriet responded by saying, "we'll see about that once we've looked at everything thoroughly."
If you're a little bit more bothered about what was said, some choice passages follow. If you're totally bothered, or have unfortunately had your legs hacked off, been strapped to a computer and have got bored of the porn on offer, you can read the full transcript here.
We hold our views strongly because, apart from the independent Members, we are all members of political parties; we have all been elected and we all have a big focus on the system.
Just out of interest, holding views strongly because you are a member of a political party is nothing to be proud of. In truth, it should be the cause of embarrassment. If you want to take it further, holding a passionate view on a topic that is open to emotion is tantamount to throwing reason out the window, and therefore, lessening the credibility of everything you say. To read a much more eloquent and authoritative version of that sentence, read the first chapter of Bertrand Russell's Sceptical Essays.
As party creatures, it is sometimes difficult for us to disentangle the issues; it is often easy to think that we have argued something from principle because we feel it hugely strongly and because it happens to help our party.
Well at least she recognises her shortcomings. As yet, no evidence to suggest she is bothered about doing anything about them.
Back to the fatuous nonsense then...
we want to have the best system that we can
I believe that a good 70% of the time spent talking in the House (or the Hall) is wasted. It's a bit like a test match, where you spend the vast majority of time watching things build up for those split second delights of a middle stump doing cartwheels or the unparalleled beauty of the crack of leather on willow. Except cricket is cool, and the 'build up' is an integral part of the joy. The wishy-washy nonsense that flops out of the mouths of parliamentarians like dribble on a baby's chin is just useless platitudinal tat.
Ms Harman even bothered saying that New Labour would not rig the system in their favour. Take a second and consider the reasons one would ever have to make such a statement...
Perhaps it's not too surprising that Harriet didn't give us much to condemn her to party-political hell with; she was never going to make particularly strong statements, and was wise in the stats she chose to refer to. As Malcolm said, she failed to respond to the direct questions put to her, but it is impossible to tell via Hansard how much she squirmed while sticking to her script. I can but assume her little face scrunched up somewhat when asked:
Will the Minister also tell me whether she thinks that 35 per cent. of the vote is sufficient to give a Government legitimacy with an overall majority? What percentage figure does she think would be too low to give a Government the legitimate authority to govern even if they had an overall majority in the House of Commons?
Judging by the transcript, she simply didn't hear it. If anyone has the happy occasion of meeting Ms Harman on their travels, perhaps they'd like to repeat the question.
Posted by pauldavies on June 15, 2005
Comments
Why electoral reform needs Labour and Labour needs electoral reform!
To those opponents of electoral reform who ask;
"Yes first past the post (FPTP) has faults, but what electoral system do you propose instead?"
I answer;
"No current democracy has an electoral system worse than FPTP."
If you doubt what I say ask yourself;
What democratic country would opt today for an electoral system that leaves open the possibility of a party finishing third in the popular vote yet winning the majority of the seats in parliament? This is the system we have!
What we currently have is a two-party electoral system dysfunctioning because it is operating in a multi-party environment.
While I would support the progress of a move to a three party system like the single transferable vote (STV) or alternative vote plus(AV+), or less so, even moving to a two party system like the alternative vote (AV) that at least takes into account voter preferences, I would prefer we move directly to a system that is fair to all the parties like open list PR or 50/50 mixed member proportional (MMP).
It is no surprise that the Lib Dems as the current third placed party, support a move to a three party system like STV, which still discriminates against minor parties.
It is also no surprise that the Conservatives as the current second placed party support FPTP, as even now it gives them roughly a proportional number of seats but also leaves open their best possibility of absolute power in the future. They also know a few clever boundary changes and boundary enlargements and they are back in a powerful position.
The main reason any party has for changing the electoral system is self interest.
For this reason it is to the Labour administration that I address my plea for electoral reform!
There are also good reasons to believe that this is the best strategy to achieve electoral reform. Labour it is said, already has over 100 MPs that support a change to PR and forms the government that has the opportunity to affect a change.
As a Labour supporter and member I believe it is in our best interests to change the electoral system now while we have the chance. This Labour government has a unique opportunity to change the electoral system for the good. The chance may not come again for a long time.
By leaving FPTP in place, this Labour government is gambling that the Conservatives cannot win on the current boundaries, which favour the winners of low turnout urban constituencies. The Conservatives have stated that if they ever get a majority again, they will enlarge the boundaries to favour their party instead.
Apart from the fact that this boundary fiddling shows utter contempt for democracy, Labour will finally realise the consequences of the lower turnout of their voters in urban areas.
By enlarging the constituencies and combining rural and urban areas the Tories know the higher turnout of their voters in rural areas will outnumber the lower turnout of Labour urban voters. This could replace the current Labour advantage with a Tory electoral bias which could keep Labour out of power for a long time.
Labour should not be so complacent as to think that the Conservatives could not win the next election. With the Labour economic gloss that they relied on so heavily in this election losing its shine in the coming recession, the next election will not be so easy for Labour.
The second part of my argument is going to be more difficult and painful for Labour supporters to accept.
We have to sever our blind faith in the tribal party loyalty that our present system encourages and remember that parties are only the means and not the end. We should remember it is the policies that matter and not the party that delivers them.
Under PR it is almost certain that the present political party makeup will radically change. The most likely scenario is two blocs of parties;
socialist/social democratic/green
versus
conservative/ukip/nationalists
I believe that because a multi-party proportional system will more accurately reflect the publics' views on the issues, this will be fairer and lead to better consensual government.
I also believe that at present this will favour the progressive left, of which Labour would fill the social democratic role and be the largest party by far. This has been shown to be the case in New Zealand which moved from FPTP to MMP in 1993. There the Labour party has consolidated its position as the largest party and increased its share of the vote.
Yes, the Labour party would have to form coalition governments with socialists and greens but I believe this would address the current disillusionment of the left of the party that currently feels ignored and will allow left of centre government to promote more radical policy that reflects its supporters views. Remember under PR, the majority of the increase in voter turnout will come from urban left of centre voters who currently feel dis-enfranchised. This is likely to benefit Labour the most.
So in summary, the Labour party should adopt PR to save itself from another long period of political wilderness under a Tory boundary fiddling government! It would be unlikely that the Tories could win under PR as a majority of the electorate have voted for progressive left parties for at least the past 40 years and seem likely to continue doing so for the foreseable future.
Posted by: Neil at June 16, 2005 04:33 AM
"The Conservatives have stated that if they ever get a majority again, they will enlarge the boundaries to favour their party instead."
Where, prey tell, did they say this?
Posted by: Paul Davies at June 16, 2005 10:13 AM
In their manifesto they said they would reduce the number of constituencies to 500. This would favour the Conservatives because it would mean many more constituencies where urban areas would have to be divided up and bits arbitrarily added to rural constituencies. The natural boundaries of urban areas would no longer be taken into consideration. Cleverly done this could change the current accidental Labour advantage to a Conservative advantage. It cannot be merely a coincidence that the Tories are considering these particular changes!
Posted by: Neil at June 17, 2005 04:47 AM
that's not stating that they will bias the system in their favour.
I'm well aware of the manifesto pledge. We even mentioned it on this very blog.
See?.
It's a helluva jump to go from that to "stating" that they would bias the system in their favour.
"Cleverly done this could change the current accidental Labour advantage to a Conservative advantage."
True, in the same way that Labour's cleverness at the last boundary review helped land them in such an enviable position. But both parties are now more aware of what can be achieved through these sort of negotiations, and therefore it would be ery hard for one party to gain a significant advantage again.
Posted by: Paul Davies at June 17, 2005 11:48 AM
Why 500 constituencies? Because it would automatically mean combining a number of urban areas with more rural areas. This change alone would favour the Tories. This is why they like this number. That to me, is deliberately changing the boundaries to suit oneself!
Obviously once it got down to the nitty gritty of negotiating exactly where the boundaries would be drawn, Labour would fight hard to minimise any losses BUT the damage would already have been done by reducing the number of constituencies.
Of course this all assumes that political parties follow the same rules laid out by the boundary commission. Here again the Tories are hinting they might change these rules. In fact, what is to stop the boundary commission's impartiality being challenged altogether and the winning party just drawing the boundaries to their best advantage (this is the case in the US). The answer is very little, we have no constitutional barriers.
The point I was making above was that Labour should consider PR as the best way of keeping a more liberal/progressive government in power because the Tories are planning on getting very nasty with the FPTP system! Labour might not get another chance for a long time. We should focus most of our persuasion at this Labour government. Arguing for Labour's self-preservation could be a powerful tool. Also Labour is a party allegedly with over 100 pro-reform MPs already, the Tories have none. I think this tells us a lot!
Posted by: Neil at June 20, 2005 01:16 AM
We're democrats and believe in free speech, but we're also committed to civil and rational debate. We reserve the right to delete material posted to our site, but we hope and expect to exercise this right rarely if at all.
