Should Conservatives embrace electoral reform?

I can't think of two letters more likely to antagonise a traditional Tory audience than "P" and "R".  The right has been near unanimous in its opposition to Proportional Representation.

PR has been viewed as a dastardly scheme, cooked up by Lib Dems to win more seats.  Or as some Guardianista plot, aimed at achieving permanent centre-left government.

But surely it is small-state Conservatism that loses out most under the current disposition? 

With 7 out of 10 MPs from “safe seats”, the Commons today is monumentally useless as a legislature capable of reining in the executive.  Indeed, most of its members today don't merely favour the executive - they aspire to be part of it.  Thus are £ Billions of tax revenue spent - without proper scrutiny.  Hence does most law come from Brussels.  And thereby does the quango state decide public policy, ministers occasionally letting the House know. 

Without a effective check from the legislature, executive power reaches into the nooks and crannies of our lives - and our wallets.  

For a generation or more, Conservatives have made a tactical error, looking to Tory-run executives alone to rein in executive power. That’s why there are more quangos, spending more money, and making more decisions, than ever before.   Curbing executive power is a task for a revived legislature, too.

If every member of the Commons faced a genuinely competitive election to remain at Westminster, we would have a legislature with real verve, capable of independent-minded scrutiny of government.

The best way to bring real choice and competition in our politics would be to allow Totnes-style open primary contests in every constituency – as well as recall votes against dozy or wayward incumbents. This October, I’ll be introducing a Bill that’ll allow local people to do both.

But perhaps we need multi-member constituencies, too?  I'm open-minded.

“Party list” PR would mean that instead of 7 out of 10 MPs having safe seats, it’d be 9 out of 10. Politics would become one giant “A list”.

Yet, if we were to have multi-member seats, as in Ireland, combined with open primaries, law makers who didn’t listen to local people would be one term candidates. We’d have citizen law-makers championing the local interest in Westminster - and fewer professional politicians defending Westminster to their constituents.

Multi-member seats would retain the constituency link – and produce clear working majorities, not endless coalitions. It’d ensure more choice when deciding who gets to be your next MP. And more competition, not just when opening fetes and holding advice surgeries, but when vying to champion local opinion.

Conservatives recognise that choice and competition raise standards in our public services. We need to apply the same logic to our politics, too.

Posted on 7 September 2009 by Douglas Carswell

Comments

The two letters more likely to antagonise a traditional Tory audience are "E" and "U".

Posted on 7 September 2009 10:58 by Robert Eve

Douglas.
I much enjoy your blog but think this post entirely misses the point. If you want to give Westminster politics a shot in the arm, Parliament has to have relevance. If, as the press tell us, Westminster can no longer even control the types of light bulb we use, because of the continuous drain of power to Brussels, are you not entirely wasting your time? When Westminster has power again, its members will seem more important to elect and scrutiny will follow. The quality of MPs both intellectually, verbally and morally has declined directly in relation to the power the House wields. It does not need me to tell you what is needed!

Posted on 7 September 2009 11:22 by William

It is also the case that Labour get a significant advantage from generally having smaller constituencies & a more concentrated vote than the Conservatives. That means that to win an election the Conservatives have to be something like 10% ahead of Labour. It is likely they will manage that this time but, unless they adopt most of the economuc policies I suggest (!) & get the economy growing at at least world average levels it will be extremely difficult to win the following election. The party should be putting thought now into how to win that more difficult election. To some extent Boundary Commission reforms redraw constituencies to even them out but because people keep moving out of Labour areas they are always behind the times. A less inmpartial but genuine effect is that Labour voters turn out less which has no effect under a system where only constituencies matter but under a top up a higher turnout in Conservative areas produces a real gain in seats.

In favour of the LibDems - FPTP entrenches Labour in that if both parties get similar votes Labour keeps most of their seats & this, in turn, has at least once prevented their dissolution.

And another self interested one - at the EU election more people voted for PR parties than Conservatives & Labour together - whichever big party reforms the system will be seen by the electorate, for at least a generation, as the more progressive.

Posted on 7 September 2009 11:30 by Neil Craig

One constituency with 650 elected members elected on a single none transferable vote.

A "constituency" is itself an artificial construct.
A single ward for all Members would allow scattered groups as well as concentrated ones to elect members.
A Dairy Farmer in Wales has more in common with a Dairy Farmer in Scotland than a Teacher in Swansea.

Removing artificial constituancies would allow organic ones to develop, following the lines of real life rather than distant politicised mappers.

Posted on 7 September 2009 11:31 by DominicJ

Douglas, I am probably being 'thick', but you have lost me here.

Firstly, would not open primaries and a re-call system sort out the 'one-term' MPs?

So why the need for multi-member constituencies? Does this not just increase the number of MPs, or are you suggesting larger constituencies?

Surely if all parties adopted OPs and re-call the situation could arise whereby say the Labour candidate was far better than the Tory candidate and even though the seat was 'Tory', the Labour candidate could succeed?

Perhaps you can expand on the pros and cons of multi-member constituencies and how it could work?

Posted on 7 September 2009 11:54 by WitteringsfromWitney

"The best way to bring real choice and competition in our politics would be to allow Totnes-style open primary contests in every constituency".

No, the best way would be to REQUIRE them. :)

Posted on 7 September 2009 12:42 by John Page

We have multi-member constituencies for local council elections in Scotland. Consequently, only one of our 32 local authorities is under the overall control of one party. The experience so far is that this has resulted in more cosy-consensus politics. Power-sharing deals have been struck up everywhere between various parties in order to keep others out. My own local authority previously had a Conservative administration under the old voting system. It is still Conservative led now, but a deal has been struck with the SNP share government and to keep Labour out. You also get absurd voting instructions from the candidates who ask voters to support one man in one area, but a different person in another area so that the "party" benefits overall. So far, I'm not impressed.

Posted on 7 September 2009 14:03 by David Hannah

29% of seats have not changed hands since 1945. And if you are under 40, then nearly half seats in UK have never changed hands since you were born. Hardly a system holding MPs to account...

Surely we cannot argue for or against electoral reform based on which party or parties would gain. What is critical - at both local and national levels - is that we have government that represents the will of the people. Currently we have have a huge number of MPs and Councillors who were elected with minority votes.

Open primaries are not the solution - just look at what happens in the USA where all that counts is money, it seems. Open primaries would effectively neuter local party organisations anyway.

I applaud Douglas Carswell for having the courage to raise this issue.

Posted on 7 September 2009 14:41 by Jack

"I can't think of two letters more likely to antagonise a traditional Tory audience than "P" and "R"."

Hm - how about "E" & "U"?

Posted on 7 September 2009 15:04 by John Page

Like Dominic, I do not understand how multi-member constituencies would help.

If Westminster constituencies were to become like the Euro-Constituencies, there would be fewer gains and losses for a given swing.

Posted on 7 September 2009 15:12 by Chris Rose

Good step in the right direction Douglas, I think we are pretty much from opposite ends of the spectrum politically, but it is good you are making the case for PR.

To all the nay sayers, go and ask welsh conservatives, which includes your leader in Wales, who was voted in as a regional Assembly Member.

FTTP, it it was adopted in the Welsh Assembly, would have not given rise to the plural politics we have in Wales.

STV with multi member constituencies is the fairest way to decide elections. Douglas is spot on about politicians under that system being far more willing to be vibrant.

Posted on 7 September 2009 15:50 by Marcus Warner

Marcus
Why should geographic proximity be the only criteria for defining who is represented by who?

Posted on 7 September 2009 18:00 by DominicJ

There's no need for the same scheme to be used in both Houses. I would favour single seat constituencies elected by transferred vote in the Commons and multiple seat constituencies (counties) for the Lords.

Posted on 7 September 2009 20:38 by Bob Dowling

The central problem in our system is that votes for local representatives are votes for the executive. This needs disentangling. Currently, in all honesty, people are voting at the general election for Brown, or Cameron.

So, let's have separate elections for the Glorious Leader, and for local representatives. The Americans don't have to vote for a Democrat congressman to get a Democrat president. We shouldn't have to vote for a lousy local candidate to get a particular national leader.

What system is used to select the representatives in the Commons is not the real problem; it is that the Prime Minister comes from the Commons.

Posted on 8 September 2009 01:44 by Ian B

Again, why are we forced to elect a local candidate, simply based on being resident within an area, be that ward, constituancy or county(Postal? Historic? Council County)?

I see no reason to prevent a local group running a candidate and exclusivly canvassing local people, but I see no reason to enforce that system on everyone.

We have, or we think we have, diagnosed a problem, politicians with a captive consumer dont fear losing elections, regardless of how bad they are, because their voters have no where else to go.
Free Voters to vote for any candidate, and they will dump the rubbish ones

Posted on 8 September 2009 11:37 by DominicJ

Well your devolutionary literacy seems to colour your argument.

Local candidates, ones running on local campaigns, do so to persuade voters of how they will represent their interests. Of course national policies have a massive bearing on voter intentions, but having a local representative is especially important to people who don't like the South East of England.

What, I hasten to add, do you suggest we Welsh do then under your system?

Surely 'good' and 'bad' candidates are in the eye of the beholder - I think Douglas Carswell is not an MP I would vote for, but a good number of his constituents think so. It seems stupid and rather imperialistic to make the case for centralising voting to London and the South East. The current system does that enough already.

Posted on 9 September 2009 14:10 by Marcus Warner

DominicJ, I might be misunderstanding you, but are you suggesting that we turn the entire country into one vast multi-member constituency?

Posted on 9 September 2009 14:35 by Philip Walker

Anyone who supports STV is saying that someone's 5th or 6th preference vote is equal to another person's 1st (due to the bottom candidate's votes being redistributed based on their next preferences each time a qualifying quota is not reached for the top placed candidates).

THerefore, I strongly feel that anoyone who thinks a voter's 5th choice in an election should become raised up, through the re-distribution, to equal another person's 1st choice, is endangering the very concept of democracy.

Posted on 9 September 2009 15:57 by Tim Fell

No Philip, you have it.
Wild I know, but the more I think about it, the more I like it.

Posted on 9 September 2009 18:34 by DominicJ

Tim Fell,
I think you are missing the point. STV (As used here in Ireland) makes sure that every vote is used. Why should the vote of a Labour voter who votes Labour in a solid Labour area be valued more than a Tory voter who chooses to give a second preference to a Lib Dem? STV gives choice and freedom to voters. There are no wasted votes.

Posted on 9 September 2009 23:03 by Jason O'Mahony

Tim: Let's say Candidate X receives Voter A's first vote and Voter B's fifth vote. Then if Voter B's fifth vote has arrived at Candidate X, the odds are that that candidate has survived two or three rounds, which means voter A's first vote has already been counted two or three times, and voter B's fifth vote is about to be counted for the first time. Both voters are counted at all points (until ballot exhaustion), but their individual rankings are not considered to be "equal".

Posted on 10 September 2009 12:06 by Philip Walker

May I correct Philip Walker's misunderstanding of STV? In his example, Voter A's 1st choice vote (not 1st vote because each voter has only one vote, which is transferable) will have been counted only once - not two or three times. Votes transferred to Canidate X are simply added to the candidate's previous subtotal.

Posted on 14 September 2009 15:03 by Anthony Tuffin

David Hannah wrote, "My own local authority previously had a Conservative administration under the old voting system. It is still Conservative led now [under STV], but a deal has been struck with the SNP to share government and to keep Labour out." Presumably that's because no one party won more than half the votes, but the Conservatives and SNP did between them. That's called "democracy" David!

Douglas Carswell was quite right when he wrote, "With 7 out of 10 MPs from "safe seats", the Commons today is monumentally useless as a legislature capable of reining in the executive." Paradoxically, fewer seats might change hands under STV (the system favoured by Conservative Action on Electoral Reform, STV Action and the Electoral Reform Society) but more seats would be vulnerable to change, which would keep all MPs on their toes. At present, even the most brilliant Conservative candidate cannot unseat a Labour candidate in a safe seat, which is why David Carswell had to move from Sedgefield to Harwich and Clacton. With STV, the weakest Labour MP in a multi-member constituency would be vulnerable to a strong Conservative candidate. Of course, it would also apply the other way round, but it would improve the quality of constituency representation; it would be democratic, which the present system is not.

Moreover, STV is the only voting system that can help curb the abuse of some MPs of their expenses claims. With STV, voters can choose between different official candidates of the same party. This would allow them to vote against sitting MPs without any risk of splitting the party vote and would make MPs directly accountable to voters. In short, the VOTERS could elect the honest and careful and remove the dishonest or careless.

The websites of stvAction and the Electoral Reform Society explain STV more fully.

Posted on 15 September 2009 20:42 by Anthony Tuffin

It is not surprising to hear of opposition to the letters P and R when what they really mean is Party Representation. What I am interested in is better Representation of People, not Parties. Didn't David Cameron say basically the same thing when he said he opposed list PR systems as the give political parties even more power and that in his view, the balance of power should be shifted to the voters? Good for him. The one system which will achieve that and what Mr Carswell says he wants is STV. That is the system British Governments (both Labour and Conservative) gave to Ireland, and then to Northern Ireland on separate occasions for local and European Elections. So why is STV not good enough for Britain? And it would do away with any need for expensive primaries. STV has given a sharp shock to complacency in Scottish Local Government, and would help to restore faith in Parliament if used in General Elections. Although STV's main strength's are to give more power to the voters, reduce the huge loss in wasted votes and remove safe seats, it also gives fairer representation (and thereby authority but not raw power) to the parties, including conservatives in major urban areas.

Posted on 25 September 2009 10:23 by Peter Morley

Make A Comment