Constituency Link: Another Gentlemens' Agreement

Aplologies for the cross-posting, but I thought Progress readers might be interested in a piece I've written for the Make Votes Count blog run by Malcolm Clark.   www.makemyvotecount.org.uk/blog

Health reforms to the structures of GPs practices are meant to produce greater choice for consumers, increasing competition and encouraging each surgery to offer a higher quality of service.  But angry ministers yesterday alleged that GPs have been circumventing moves towards greater competition by reaching informal "gentlemens' agreements" not to take on new patients, effectively blocking our ability to shop around.  This, it is argued, is a self-interested bid to protect their out-dated status as monopoly service providers, frustrate modernisation and enjoy comfortable salaries and privileges free having to offer improvements in service.

Sound familiar? Aren't MPs upto the same kind of trick with their consensus that we musn't break up the "constituency link"?  Why should we allow them to hold onto their own 'like-it-or-lump-it' monopolies of parliamentary representation which give voters no choice over who gets to represent them between elections?   Why is it that the monopoly service providers in all other areas of the public sector are derided as "dinosaurs" resistant to modernisation, when the MPs themselves insist on having a monopoly of representation in their constituency?  If allowing consumers to shop around increases competition and incentives service provides to continually improve their service, why should the same not also apply to MPs themselves? 

This is far from unthinkable - multi-member constituencies work well in local government, and in Scotland under the proportional STV system, voters are finding not only they get a better representation in terms of the party composition of councils, but also over the individual councillors from within that party.  Councillors are now kept on their toes, because they know that if they are unwilling or ineffective in dealing with a voters' concerns, then one of their rivals might prove a good deal better.  Maybe it's inevitable that vested interest groups will try to resist change and protect their monopoly privileges.  So in Westminster too we find that a "gentlemens' agreement" limits choice.  And I do mean an agreement that suits men over women, since as ERS research demonstrates, single-member electoral systems tend to mitigatae against womens' representation, which is one reason why only 4 out of 5 MPs are male. 

But it's high time that we turned the MP's logic about choice and competition leading to a better quality of service back against the "dinosaur" tendency in Westminster, too.

AV: No referendum necessary

When Labour's 1997 manifesto pledged a referedum on the voting system used to elect the Commons, it was in the specific context of a "proportional alternative" to be established by an Indepdent Commission (though when this body reported under that chairmanship of Roy Jenkins recommending the proportional AV+ system, it was effectively sidelined).  The case for a referendum was predicated on the understanding that the alternative would herald a substantial shift in the political culture of the nation: it would require widespread boundary changes; it would change the dynamic of the single member - constituency link; in reflecting the real balance of support between parties it would limit the capacity of single political parties to form an executive exlusively from within its own ranks, requiring a more consensual and co-operative style of politics; and would allow smaller parties greater access to representation.  In total, changing the voting system to a proportional system would have a substantial impact on the way democracy functions, and thus it was felt that the decision should rest with voters themselves.

The Alternative Vote, whilst it might in some ways valuably augment the present FPTP voting system and require a shift in the methods of voting from the use of X's to numerical preferences, would not substantially impact upon the culture of our politics.  Yes, each elected MP would require the support of a majority of those voting, and it would put an end to the fear of votes "splitting" to unintended effect.  However, it would not have the kind of radical impact of a PR system.  The single member consitutency link/monopoly would remain intact.  There would still not be a situation where all votes counted equally.  Seats would still not be distributed in proportion to votes received, so it would still be entirely possible for a party have an exclusive grip on government with a minority share of the vote.  And it would not help to extend the range of parties represented at Westminster. 

So why is Jack Straw still insisting that if Labour was to bring forward proposals on AV, it would still b ebound by a referenum promise made on an entirely different basis?  The government didn't hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty for precisely this reason.  Is it really worth the expense of a national referendum and the effort to build support for a measure which, though in some sense a step forward from FPTP, hardly offers the basis for the real reforms our political system needs?  Why not include a promise to bring in AV in the next manifesto, and include provision for voters to determine whether there is still an ongoing need for a proportional element?

Harriet: Read the government's report!

Courtesy of my colleague Malcolm Clark:

http://www.makemyvotecount.org.uk/blog/.

Quick, somebody send Harriet Harman a copy of her Government's review of electoral systems. For she appears either not to have read it; or to have misunderstood what she's read; or at worst to be wilfully misrepresenting what the report concluded. And given the review was done from an academic, non-judgemental viewpoint, that's a serious matter.

In answer to a well put reader's question (by Ruth Coleman) in today's Independent on "you have spoken in the past about boosting democracy. So how can you be against proportional representation?"

Harriet responded:

"We have introduced proportional representation in European elections, Scottish council elections and London Assembly elections. We'll shortly be publishing a review of how the new systems worked. But the evidence suggested is that it doesn't boost turnout and people find it complicated."

In contrast, the review itself concluded:

We do not find, on balance, any evidence to suggest that voters find one voting system easier or more confusing than another voting system.” (para 6.170)

Proportional systems were found, on international comparison, to be associated with higher voter turnout than First Past the Post and other majoritarian systems. (para 7.97)

As an addendum to that final point, it should be noted that since none of the elections included in the review were conducted under First-Past-the-Post before they changed to a form of PR, no easy comparisons of turnout can be made. However, the Scottish Local Elections in 2007 under STV did see a reasonable increase in the total number of votes cast compared with under FPTP; partly as a result of many more seats being competitive and some in rural areas being contested for virtually the first time.