Proceeding contribution from Lord Lipsey (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 20 December 2010. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to this amendment. I am particularly pleased to respond to my noble friend Lady Hayter. It is a little known fact that explains much; we started work together in the research department of the General and Municipal Workers’ Union, then under the plebeian leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Radice, around 1970. We have been arguing ever since but have remained the closest of friends, and I will argue briefly with her tonight. I am always surprised when keen first past the posters argue for thresholds and various other forms of fiddling the rules. Under the first past the post system, however few votes the person who gets more votes than anyone else gets, they win. I thought that was what attracted people to that system. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness has tabled this amendment and I can see why she has done so. However, it would lead to some extraordinarily paradoxical conclusions. Let us say that the election result went as follows in an AV referendum. In England, 7 million people voted yes and 3 million people voted no—a huge victory for AV. Let us suppose that corresponding margins occurred in Northern Ireland or Scotland, but the Welsh in their wisdom—as an adopted Welshman, I think there is much wisdom in Wales—voted, on roughly the same turnout, with 251,000 against AV and 249,000 for AV. In that case the 251,000 would trump the majority of 4 million-plus in the rest of the United Kingdom, and AV would not go ahead. I can quite understand those who say that this should be an advisory referendum—we moved an earlier amendment to this Bill to that effect and that has good scope—but simply to do it on the basis that one country has voted yes and one country has voted no is not good cause for a review. We are a united kingdom. Our national elections have to be run as though they were national elections for the Government of the United Kingdom, and to seek to set one nation within that kingdom against another kingdom is neither desirable nor wise. I therefore very much hope that my noble friend will not press her amendment tonight because for once in our long life I would not be able to support her in the Lobbies.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 723 c827
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Constituency size Alternative vote Australia Cornwall Distribution of seats Electoral register Exemptions General elections Isle of Wight Northern Ireland Northern Ireland Assembly Members National Assembly for Wales Referendums Scotland Voting methods Wales Scottish Parliament Ballot papers Ynys Môn Na h-Eileanan an Iar Orkney and Shetland
- Legislation
- Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-11-15 10:44:32 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_695418
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_695418
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_695418