The current proposals for electoral boundary changes include the idea that the number of constituencies and MPs should be reduced from 650 to 600. My suggestion is this: let’s keep the overall number of MPs at 650, and let’s agree to reduce the number of constituency MPs to 600 on the condition that the other 50 (less than 10%) are elected from party lists on the basis of proportional representation.
In a democracy, all votes should be equal. Votes will never be equal in the UK until the country adopts the proportional representation (PR) voting system. Under the ‘first past the post’ voting system, where many votes are essentially ‘wasted’, one way of trying to ensure some ‘fairness’ in the voting system, is to ensure that each constituency has approximately the same number of voters.
It is important to note that the reduction of MPs itself is not a policy objective of the Lib Dems, although it was agreed to in the Coalition Agreement at the request of the Conservatives.
For as long as the country uses the FPTP system, we agree with the policy objective of trying to ‘equalise’ the numbers of voters in each constituency. However, we do take issue with how those numbers are equalised in the current proposals.
Re-drawing constituency boundaries is a tool that both Labour and Conservatives have used to their advantage over the years to make more constituencies ‘winnable’ for their own party, to create more safe seats. All the votes which are cast for someone other than the person who wins do not count. When more seats are made safe for one party, even more votes become wasted. This is what happens with every Boundary Review, and it is what the Conservatives are trying to achieve through the current proposals.
One way to save those wasted votes, to counter-balance the increased marginalisation of those voters under the new boundaries, would be to keep the First Past the Post voting system, but top it up with a set number of MPs chosen by a proportional voting system.
The Conservative proposal to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600, carve up communities, make constituencies bigger and reduce contact between voters and MPs, all without a referendum, is already a radical step. By comparison, keeping the same number of MPs, and having less than 10% of them selected to reflect the voting patterns of the country at large would be a moderate but important measure to counter-balance the Conservative proposals, and help make every vote count.
What are the critics likely to say?
- “Liberal Democrats want unelected MPs.” No, we don’t. All of these MPs would be elected and, moreover, under a FAIRER system.
- “Voters rejected political reform in the AV referendum.” No, they didn’t. They rejected a choice between two sub-optimal systems: AV and FPT. People weren’t given a real choice.
- “Liberal Democrats want this without a referendum – it’s electoral reform by the back door.” Existing Conservative led plans are far more radical. By comparison, this proposal is a moderate and counter-balancing measure.
Conservative backbenchers have offered a 7-point compromise plan on House of Lords reform. Let’s offer our own compromise on boundary changes.
* Daisy Cooper is the Liberal Democrat MP for St Albans.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
DarwIN Shrewsbury Festival, February 2025
Well, that's one way to report an opinion poll - The Week in Polls
Pruning the money tree
Milnbank Road of old #dundeewestend
Mark Valladares
Margaret
John Walller
Peter Davies
David Allen
14 Comments
Nice idea but reads like another miserable little compromise to me, which, together with the loss of the AV referendum, would put back even further the introduction of a properly proportional system. As I understand, it is Liberal Democrat policy to reduce the size of the House of Commons albeit coupled with the introduction of STV. Any system which involves closed List systems, thereby, giving power to party members rather than ordinary electors would not be supported. Indeed, it is about time the closed List systems for the European Parliament and London Assembly were opened up.
The way forward is for Cameron to force some discipline on his party and for the proposals, with minor amendments (shorter 7 year terms, 120 elected peers, for example) to be voted through when Parliament resumes after the recess. If that cannot be achieved, the Government should abandon both Lords reform and the boundary changes and the remainder of the Coalition’s term should focus relentlessly on growing the economy, providing jobs for youngsters, reducing the deficit, and building an education system fit for the future. Tinkering with the constitution is not what the public wants at the moment and the LibDems will be punished for pursuing it.
sorry daisy, this is a terrible idea.
for two reasons:
1. (important) i think PR is an inferior electoral system
2. (less important) the voting public doesn’t appear to have any problem with the present system
Several points of disagreement I am afraid. Firstly, single transferable vote is an excellent system and the Lib Dems ought to consistently promote it and not be sidetracked into supporting any other system as a ‘compromise’.
Secondly these hybrid systems offer the worse of all world. In 2010 – arguably all 50 top up MPs would have gone to the Lib Dems and still they would have had a smaller % of MPs (about 16%) than their share of the vote (23%).
The BNP 1.9% and UKIP 3.1% would probably wnat some of the top up MPs too. 7 Parties individually got less votes than the BNP but elected 27 MPs between them.
As I recall, the Lib Dems did indeed ask for a reduced number of MPs, wanting 500, an even bigger reduction. A rather stupid policy in my view – but there you go.
Thirdly, it politcial daydreaming to imagine either Labour or the Conservatives will support electoral reform until they see it as being in their interest, Labour only came round to considering PR after 13 years out of office, similarly the Conservatives only allowed a vote of AV because the alternative could have been 13 yeras out of office becoming 18 years. To secure PR will I imagine take several consecutive hung parliaments.
Why should a party get representation in Parliament in the same proportions as its votes among the electorate?
The basic point is that there is nothing in it right now for either Labour or Tories. They know they can steamroller us because under every scenario they stand to lose if any kind of proportional system is introduced. The only way I see this changing is if Labour win an outright majority in 2015 (which looks very possible, even with boundary changes – check out the UK polling report swingometer). In that circumstance there is a slight possibility that some Tories will realise that the FPTP electoral system hasn’t exactly delivered for them. But I imagine this would only ever be a minority of the party.
So basically we want to see MPs kicked out by their constituents, but still having an influence in Parliament because they’re chums with their party leaders?
It might be a good way to paper over the cracks at Westminster for the time being, but I fear that the public might well have had enough of us talking about constitutional reform for now, especially as the Lords issue is due to return to the headlines after the parliamentary recess.
Still, I don’t agree with most of the comments saying its an inherently terrible idea. It looks to me like a rough and ready way to simulate the ‘overhang seats’ as found in, for example, New Zealand, where they basically do fptp in constituencies as we do, but with a number of seats awarded from party lists to maintain proportionality. Seems to work well enough for them, keeping things balanced in the absence of an upper house, although how well it would perform with a nationwide third party potentially sweeping up all of the proportionality seats is up for question.
Followed the link to the Tory backbenchers’ Lords compromise plan. My MP has signed it.
Had to smile. Of course the National Trust, RSPB, etc could put up candidates under the system proposed by the government. The only trouble is they would have to compete for votes with everyone else. Can’t have that. Still with a shrinking number of people voting Tory or Labour in elections for Westminster I could see them winning seats.
Nice idea – this should be included as part of our compromise negotiation options.
It would be a good LD achievement to increase the proportionality of the house a bit, and stop so many wasted votes.
Actually voters did reject electoral reform in the referendum. Based on the course of the debate, it seems most people who voted No opted for the “old familiar” system – if does not appear to have been a case of them rejecting a “half a loaf” electoral system (AV) in the belief they would be offered a “full loaf” (PR) if they did so.
@Paul R :
“Actually voters did reject electoral reform in the referendum.”
This is a ‘repeat a big lie often enough’ line.
In the handful of places around the country where there was an actual local campaign on the issues concerned, the AV ‘Yes’ won significantly. In the rest of the country, it was a proxy referendum on the Lib Dem leadership, paid for by the Unions with hatchet job supplied by a united front of Tory and Labour politicians.
Why do people keep on saying that the electorate ‘voted against AV’… no they didn’t, they voted to stick with what they had got and not change to something they didn’t understand.! Anyone who claims otherwise is anti-democratic. The people, faced with the confusing messages from the media, the lies from the opponents(repeated readily by the media rather than challenged or examined), a compromise of a proposal and a poorly worded question, did the obvious thing and voted for the status quo.
Until we sort out the rules of referenda, ie that the question is simple; the issues are well explained; the media are required to print only the arguments; the protagonists are required to be honest.. until we can be sure of that, no matter what the issue is there should be no referenda. We elect our MPs to decide things on our behalf, so we should concentrate on attracting a better calibre of individual to serve us, and making our Parliament work as it should, rather than fragmenting it by taking things to a referendum.
“In a democracy, all votes should be equal.”
and so should be candidates; hence party lists are unnecessary and undemocratic…
At one level, I sympathise with Daisy, but I think there is one huge mistake, which is that her suggestions seek to take the opportunity presented by the changes to alter things in a way that is congenial to us as Lib Dems. It is absolutely natural for political parties to want to re-jig the system to their advantage — in that respect there’s a parallel with the way in which it will be natural for Labour and Convservatives to want a little “gerrymandering” to distort electoral boundaries to give them (more) safe seats.
At this stage, surely what we *actually* need is to stand for and support the independence of the Electoral Commission, whose task is, in effect, to re-draw the boundaries in a way that best allows the people of the UK to be represented in parliament, rather than pandering to the interests/needs of any party (including us). I suspect we stand to gain more than the bigger parties from a non-gerrymandered approach, but should be modelling the altruistic idea that effective representation of the people counts above the interests of any party, ours included.