After the vote: electoral reform David Steven
May 2, 2010 | More on UK | 4 comments
I have been wondering how the road to reform of the British electoral system might play out. Assume Thursday’s vote gives the Liberal Democrats sufficient power to extract a pledge from one of the other parties to move this agenda forward, what might we expect to ensue?
An easy way to address this question is to assume the Lib Dems end up in the (perhaps unlikely) position of being given everything they ask for on the issue.
A bill would swiftly be pushed through Parliament to switch future elections to Single Transferable Vote in multi-member seats, right? After all, the party’s policy brief on political reform is unequivocal (if frustratingly lacking in detail) on the subject:
The Liberal Democrats will change politics forever and end safe seats by introducing a fair, more proportional voting system for MPs, and for the House of Lords.
Well, no, changing politics forever may not be nearly as simple as that.
The Lib Dems can hardly claim a mandate for a fundamental transformation of British democracy based on what Nick Clegg derides as a ‘clapped out’ and ‘potty’ electoral system.
After all, the party knows that polls suggest public ambivalence, at best, about PR. It would have to offer a ‘fair vote’ on a concrete reform proposal. To me, that means a referendum would be inevitable.
Lib Dems concur. The party’s manifesto describes STV as its ‘preferred’ system, but it also promises to ‘introduce a written constitution’:
We would give people the power to determine this constitution in a citizens’ convention, subject to final approval in a referendum.
So, in the Lib Dem ‘dream scenario’, a government would be expected to
- Set up a process that it wouldn’t fully control (and that’s not to criticise the need for inclusion and consultation).
- Through that process, agree a constitution that would contain a package of issues that went far beyond electoral reform.
- Put the whole package to an up-or-down vote and then live with the consequences.
All this would, presumably take time (creating new constituencies would then take even longer). In some ways, this would be good for the stability of a coalition. After all, the Lib Dems will have an enormous incentive to trigger a new election once PR is in place.
But there would be considerable political dangers as well. One can’t help being reminded of the tortuous process that led to the Lisbon Treaty. It also started life at a citizen’s convention and then floundered through a series of referenda.
Surely a Lib Dem-ish government would risk losing a vote on PR because the electorate objected to other parts of the proposed constitution; or was angry with the government for other reasons (highly likely, in an era of austerity) and used the referendum to punish it.
And if the referendum was rejected, wouldn’t the government fall as well? Either because the Lab Dems pulled support in a huff. Or because the government was simply discredited by losing such as important vote.
In reality, of course, this scenario ignores the wishes of Lib Dems’ majority partner in any coalition (and that the Conservatives could still gain a majority, and would almost certainly try to govern as a minority if they got the chance).
But Labour, too, promises a referendum on electoral reform (this for the alternative vote system which the Lib Dems dislike). I wouldn’t bet on the ability of a new Brown government to win any referendum, given the mood of the country.
David Cameron, meanwhile, has refused to irrevocably rule out a deal on PR. Surely he too would want to put any new voting system to the country?
Given an overwhelming majority of Conservative party members (MPs too, I suspect) would be against abandoning first-past-the-post, wouldn’t much of the party then campaign for a ‘no’ in any referendum?
In all these scenarios, you’d have to
- Expect an extended period of political instability at a time when the government will face a highly challenging domestic and international agenda.
- Give at least reasonable odds for the whole enterprise ending in ignominious failure.
(One further wrinkle would be to wonder what would happen if a government fell after reform had been agreed, but before it could be fully implemented.)
None of this is to argue that electoral reform should be ruled out (truly, it’s not). Nick Clegg would say it’s a matter of principle, and that he would be confident of winning the argument out in the country.
But for those of us who are trying to work out what how the UK’s global role will change after the election, the attempt to agree major constitutional reform could be a very potent wildcard in the short/medium term, just as regular coalitions would be in the medium/long term…
(More GD post-election scenarios here. Thanks to @jamesgraham for pointers on Lib Dem policy. As always, thoughts/corrections much appreciated!)
[Read the rest of our After the Vote series.]
Delicious
Rss
Twitter - David Steven
if labour won, they would probably introduce pr subject pretty early on
if lib dems won, they would introduce it in due time
if conservatives won they would probably avoid the subject
if labour and lib dems won, libs wd prob push for pr issue to be raised
if conservatives and lib dems won – lib dems would probably bring subject up but pershaps demur to conservatives' non-enthusiasm
self-score: 3p
Why do you writers continue to try and con the public.
Are you fearful of the reaction?….. worried that you will be branded liars?
Why do you try to advise a power base of sociopathic maniacs?….Why do you suck at the tit of marxist finance?…..hoping for a seat at the eventual table that you are convinced is coming?
Why do you persist in discussing a future that is scheduled not to happen. A future that proves that Brown sold out this country to a marxist EUSSR.
You know about this future, but refuse to discuss it. All you do is waffle about strawmen, that you set up.
The advice you give on pushing the Green/CO2/carbon credits/ after the roof fell in at Copenhagen shows you to be traitors to this country…willing to finance the destruction of its manufacturing base, and then finance the creation of said manufacturing base in a foreign country, all via carbon credits. Why don't you blog about the impact your policies will have on the living standards of this country?
How long do you think the marxist finance tit will last in the above scenario?
And what will the population do when finally the voice of reason is heard, and the detritus falls on your neck?
If you want to know why these folks refuse to discuss the planned future that they are helping to create, try this link
http://nourishingobscurity.com/2010/05/01/transfe…
And now to another point.
Last night a Greek bailout was apparently agreed. The sum falls short of the required amount.
The economic projections by the Greek Gov't show required financing for 3 years.
The sum will be enough for 2 years.
That assumes the projections are correct, and far less "Greek non cooperation" than is current.
Greece will therefor have to revisit the markets.
Given the lunacy of Merkel, and the common sense of the German supreme court, this looks increasing like a delaying tactic on the part of the Germans to buy them time to figure out how to exit, or severely contract the EU to its core regions.
Absent the bailout, and given the exposure of French banks to Greek bonds, France would have failed. That point is not lost on the Germans
Over the 2 years, the IMF is lending approx 27% of the 2 year figure. I doubt they will be in a position in 2 years time to pony up the 100% of the final year.
The full text of Papa's speech reveals not a single logical thought process.
Give it a week and the EUSSR dominos will resume their trajectory
PR demo in london is a joke. A bunch of lib democrat supporters. UK did not vote for PR. Who wants permanent coalition govts. Weak policy and a meaningless strategy.
Clegg is milking the moment even though he lost. A reluctant hero if ever there was one! i.s. workington.
This is the worst performance of the Lib. Dem. at the polls in 30 years, suffering heavy losses across the north of England, Scotland and Wales.
The party is taking the brunt of the blame for a perception that the coalition government is dragging Britain back to the Thatcherism of the 1980s.