Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Jack Straw (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 9 February 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.


Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (Money) (No. 3)

I will in a second. It was 100 years ago this year that a royal commission unanimously recommended the adoption of the alternative vote. However, the recommendation became caught up in the constitutional crisis when the unelected Conservative majority in the House of Lords decided to disrupt Lloyd George's excellent ““People's Budget””. It has been said that we should not spend a one-off £80 million at a time of economic crisis. However, the country faced a profound existential crisis in 1917 when the first world war was going badly. At that time the Government sensibly decided that they needed to look to the future, and recommended a change in the system through a Speaker's Conference—which, I remind the Committee, Winston Churchill supported as a Liberal. As a consequence of those proposals, the alternative vote was put before the House. [Interruption.] A Conservative Member mentions the Speaker's Conference, but what it recommended was different from what the House decided, and, in the end, it is the House that decides. Again, however, thanks to the built-in Conservative majority in the other place, this House's decision to go for the alternative vote was overturned, and instead the other place went not for first past the post, but for a system of proportional representation, and as a result the Bill fell.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
505 c800-1 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Boundary commissions Constituency size Constituencies Alternative vote Administration Constitutional and administrative law House of Commons General elections Members Referendums Voting methods
Legislation
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill 2008-09 to 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk