Event report: Is it time for Labour to ditch First Past the Post?

‘To think somehow that proportional representation is Viagra for a flaccid electorate not voting in great numbers, that’s a terrible mistake,’ said Stephen Pound MP at Tuesday night’s Commons event asking, is it time for Labour ditch First Past The Post?

The MP for Ealing North argued that the reasons behind low voter turnout ran deeper than the technicalities of the voting system. ‘It’s when politics matters less to people that they don’t vote. Our job is to make politics relevant to people.’

The debate, held in association with Make Votes Count, was prompted by the recent publication of the government’s review of voting systems.

Much of the discussion - also featuring contributions from Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee, justice minister Michael Wills and UCL Constitutional Unit director Robert Hazell - revolved around how the problem of voter disengagement could be addressed and whether a change in electoral system would provide a remedy.

Toynbee said that Labour should have ditched FPTP when it came to power in 1997 but that during those heady days it could not conceive of a time when it might benefit from electoral reform. ‘If it’s a hung parliament next time, it will look very cynical if the parties come round to PR just to hold onto power.’

Toynbee said that under FPTP parties to ‘descend on the centre ground where the shade of difference of what is said is so infinitesimal’ in a bid to capture the tiny number of swing voters. ‘There are big differences at heart but the voting system makes the parties cross-dress.’

Wills reminded those present that since 1997 Labour had implemented significant electoral reform, such as new voting systems for elections in Scotland, Wales and London. But he said the recent review of voting systems had not identified any one system as superior. ‘It should not be about parties choosing a system that will most advantage themselves, it’s about a voting system that delivers democracy for all of us. It’s important that constitutional change is done as much as possible on the basis of consensus.’

Wills described it as ‘profoundly patronising’ to voters to suggest that adopting particular voting systems would lead to particular results. Voters are very sophisticated and get the change they want under the current system, he said, citing the ground-shifting 1997 election as evidence.

Addressing the practicalities of achieving electoral reform, Professor Hazell offered electoral reformers some difficult facts to swallow. He identified five steps that would need to be taken – developing an alternative system, legislating to authorise a referendum, holding the referendum, a second parliamentary vote to implement the change in the event of a ‘yes’ vote, and conducting boundary reviews. 

Hazell pointed out that a referendum could not simply be sprung upon the public, but must be preceded by an education campaign, thus lengthening the process further. In the even of the public voting for a change in voting system, it would take at least a year – and probably longer – for the necessary legislation to be implemented and for boundaries to change.

However, Wills insisted that a change in voting system need not take so long. ‘It could be done very quickly if the political will was there,’ he said. ‘We would need a referendum but it could in theory be done before the next election.’

Wills also contended Toynbee’s assertion that a more proportional voting system would lead to a more plural politics, less clustered around the centre-ground. ‘Actually, that sort of system produces coalition governments and it would lead to parties having to ditch their policies once they are in a coalition.’

One audience member passionately argued that the only way to increase voter turnout is to make voting compulsory. ‘You drive on the left, you pay your taxes, you don’t punch people in the face and you vote in elections,’ he said.

Wills responded that he did not advocate compulsory voting but said the government was about to consult on whether it should be brought in. Hazell affirmed that ‘compulsory voting is the only serious and reliable way of increasing turnout’ but questioned how the public would respond to the idea. ‘It was introduced in Australia 100 years ago, in a more deferential age. I don’t know if Brits would welcome the introduction of compulsory voting.’

Pound warned against ‘aspiring to purity that is unattainable’, adding that ‘not all problems can be resolved by changing the system because there is something fundamentally wrong with democracy.’

However, the debate clearly made an impression on this traditionally adamant opponent of electoral reform. ‘I came here a die heard First Past the Post-er, but two or three of the contributors tonight have given me serious ground for thought,’ he said, rounding off a lively and stimulating night’s debate.

Comments

[Lee Griffin]

Interesting, though I do wonder why FPTP fanatics continue to argue against electoral reform in the manner they do. Just because something may not increase voter turn out, while being greatly regarded to be a better way to ensure fair representation, doesn't mean it should never be considered. It's like saying that there's no point buying a different kind of ice cream that has the same amount of calories just because there is a lower sugar and fat content.