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 am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am enjoying his speech, and he will wish to know that his description of his opponents chimes a few chords on the Government Benches. Let me correct him, if I may. In his example, the Conservative voter and the person whose first preference was knocked out and who went for a second choice both have the same number of choices. This is a serious point. If there were an eliminating ballot, of the kind that all the parties have used, and the right hon. Gentleman were lucky enough to get a plurality of the first preferences whereas Straw was knocked out, on the second ballot Straw supporters would have to decide who to vote for. So would Gummer supporters. Gummer supporters would carry on voting for Gummer. Straw supporters might decide to vote for Gummer. In both cases two votes have been exercised.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
505 c854 
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