---

Electoral System

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the scholarly and noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, who started his teaching career in the politics department at Hull University. As I shall now prove, the department has always housed people of very different views. I should also express my gratitude to both him and the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. I thought that they were trying to give my speech for me. None the less, I shall proceed with the one that I want to make. I accept that what happened in this year’s general election reinforces the case for a review of electoral law in this country. I do not accept that it makes the case for a new electoral system. There are clearly aspects of electoral law that require attention; some are to be addressed, especially in respect of voter registration, but others are not. There is a case for looking again at the criteria imposed on the Boundary Commission. I am afraid that the law on the death of candidates in elections needs reviewing. That may seem a small point, but perhaps the Minister will tell us what the implications would have been for the business on the first meeting of Parliament had a candidate died during the election campaign in the constituency of Glasgow Springburn. In the time available, I propose to focus on the arguments advanced for electoral reform. I shall argue that they involve some sleight of hand, are misplaced and in some respects are dangerous. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, invites us to accept that there is a groundswell of support for a new electoral system. There was an article about today’s debate in Tuesday’s edition of the Independent. As he said, the paper has been leading calls for change, with front-page stories and a very high profile campaign. The article reported that readers had responded in their thousands to its campaign. How many thousands? Well, just over 16,000 had bothered to sign the Independent’s petition. Out of an electorate of more than 40 million, that is not exactly evidence of the electorate rising up and demanding change. What of the arguments for change? I think that I do not do an injustice to those arguing for change if I say that they believe that there is a crisis in our democracy, manifested in low turnouts in elections and a more pervasive disengagement from politics, and that this necessitates reform of our political process, with a new electoral system forming a key part of the reforms. Core to the argument for electoral reform is that proportional representation is fairer than our existing first-past-the-post system. Let me deconstruct the elements of that argument. I accept that there is a problem with engagement in mainstream political activity. There are two basic points that I make about this. First, the problems we face are not necessarily confined to this country and can be found in countries which have political systems that the reformers wish to emulate. Secondly, our electoral system is neither a cause of, nor a solution to, the problem of disengagement. The reasons are complex; disengagement is the product of different forces at work in society—not just British society—and we need to get to grips with those pressures. I am not certain that we can necessarily get to grips with   them fully, but we need to grapple with them. Advocating constitutional change—electoral reform, a written constitution or whatever—is to my mind dangerous inasmuch as it constitutes offering a simple answer to a complex question. The parroting of the case for constitutional change distracts us from getting to grips with the causes of disengagement, or rather displaced activity, and by so doing actually contributes to the problem. The method by which we vote is not the cause, nor the answer. In that respect, the call for a new electoral system is dangerous. It also involves a sleight of hand. Proportional representation, we are told, is fairer than our first-post-the-post method of voting. That is not a true comparison. Proportional representation is not an alternative system. It is a generic term for a whole range of electoral systems, of varying degrees of proportionality. Sometimes it is even employed to encompass the alternative vote, which is definitely not a PR system. Once we look at the specific alternatives, we begin to recognise that they are not so attractive. The alternatives have drawbacks, not least the fact that they also entail unfairness. I fear that the harsh reality is that there is no truly fair system. The Martian of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, would be perplexed by what other countries do. We are told that the present system generates wasted votes, but so do the alternatives, which can result in most—if not all—the votes being wasted if the end result is a coalition for which not one voter has definitively voted. We are told that the present system is unfair to third parties in terms of their parliamentary representation. The alternatives can be unfair through giving disproportionate political power to third parties. Reformers argue that 10 per cent of the votes cast nationally should result in a party getting 10 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. But follow that through—10 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons does not then necessarily equate to 10 per cent of the negotiating power in the House of Commons. It can produce far in excess of that. Where is the fairness in that? Those are faults that I see in the arguments advanced by those arguing for a new electoral system. I have not gone into detail on the drawbacks of particular systems. We have previously debated the case for the single transferable vote. I drew attention to the problems with its operation in Ireland. The late Lord Russell’s response was, ““Well, that’s Ireland””—hardly a devastating critique of my analysis. List systems build in significant power to the party machines, especially closed list systems. Scotland shows that an additional member system is not problem-free. When we look at the operation of the various systems, we do not necessarily see wonderful turnouts or great confidence in the political system. We therefore need to tread warily, especially when we look at what our current electoral system offers. The late distinguished philosopher, Sir Karl Popper, argued that the most important facet of a political system was not how it provided for the peaceful selection of a government, but rather how it provided for the peaceful removal of a government. In his view, election day in the United Kingdom constitutes judgment day. The government know that they can be swept from office. There is a fundamental accountability in our political system. There is one body—the party in government—responsible for public policy, and electors know whom to hold to account for that policy. It is a fundamental accountability that few other systems can match. Our system delivers other attributes, including a close link between the Member and constituents, in constituencies of manageable size. There is personal contact and that link is becoming more, not less, important. It is not the defining argument for retaining our present system but it contributes to it. For reasons of time, I will not develop the several other points that can be adduced for the existing system. I think that I have done enough to demonstrate that the argument is not as one-sided as reformers believe.