We were promised a vote on PR in THIS parliament.....the introduction of some form of PR is long overdue. I believe the first past the post system is hopelessly out of date, not just to enable the representation of smaller parties but also to encourage people to have demonstrable representation. A system where a minority of people vote anyway, and then the 'losers' votes effectively count for nothing is clearly not democratic in any meaningful sense. Pleased you voted for a vote.....

I am very pleased to confirm that I did indeed vote in favour of a referendum to enable the electorate to decide whether or not to adopt the Alternative Vote (AV) for Westminster elections.


If the Bill is successfully passed into law (and it still has to clear the House of Lords) then a referendum must be held by October 2011 at the latest.


Some people have contacted me about intorducing a law to enable voters to recall thier MP. I am broadly supportive of some kind of Recall Law. However, I do think careful consideration should be given to the exact form any such proposal should take. Politicians often have to take difficult or unpopular decisions and must wrestle with many competing factors when forming a view. I would hate to see such a Recall Law being used for partisan mischief by powerful lobby or campaign groups, or to prevent necessary decisions being taken by encouraging short term popularity to be put ahead of long term good. I think therefore some kind of threshold or criteria would need to be reached in order to trigger a vote – perhaps for instance where an MP has fallen foul of the Committee on Standards and Privileges in Public Life. I’d be interested to know what you think of this.

Modernising the House of Commons - Direct Party and Representative Voting Despite the recent vote in the House of Commons and consequential public debate, a move to Proportional Representation for Westminster elections seems very unlikely. Those in favour of PR cannot build a coalition. The different forms of PR vary in their ability to deliver PR, and are often complex and difficult to understand. PR also challenges the simplicity of the single member constituency. To meet the demand for political renewal, there should be 1 One vote for a party to form the Government. 2 One vote for the Constituency MP. This could be by the FPTP system. This could be all on one ballot paper - that is the only change we need in the public voting system. A further change would be needed in Parliament where ‘one MP, one vote’ is ditched, and a fractional voting system introduced. The elected Government’s strength in Parliament would be determined by the first vote. Each MP would exercise a fractional vote. If a party got 40% support in the ‘Government’ vote but 50% of the MPs, each of their MPs would have a vote value 0.8 , with similar calculations for the other major parties. Swipe card voting should make it foolproof and simple. The Government would then have very precise proportional support, not in MPs but in votes. Why should it have more or less? Additional details could be sorted out. eg: Independent members would have a vote equal to 1, and non government business ‘free votes’ could be determined by one member one vote as at present. This system, Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR), would have the key advantages of a PR system and single member constituencies. • No longer would people be ‘disenfranchised’. Every vote would count in the election of the government. • It would be easy to vote, and easy to count, and the outcomes would be quick and easy to understand. • There need no longer be a conflict between voting for an individual or a party. You could vote for your party but not necessarily for the particular local representative. • It would make it easier for exceptional individuals to get elected, and give them an added measure of legitimacy, having been elected as an individual, not just as a party representative. • Yes, it would be still be difficult for new parties to get started – they would need exceptional and charismatic individuals to make the breakthrough, but perhaps not as difficult as at present. This system would not satisfy the ‘Strong Government’ lobby – those who want the system to throw up a big majority for the ‘winning’ party regardless of their actual democratic support. But at least the battle lines and arguments would be simplified. The DPR system would deliver PR with only a small change to our existing system. It deals with the arguments of those against PR because they want to retain the existing single member constituency, or because they want a simple voting system. It’s easy to understand, simple to implement, has no serious disadvantages, and it delivers PR. If you don’t agree, please tell me why this would not be the best way to improve our electoral system, help modernise our parliament, and engage people with the political system.

PR gives disproportionate power to minority parties and becomes a system based on 'deals' rather than decisions made by voters. The first past the post system does make it clear that a decision has been made. For example, I feel no sense of democracy in terms of EU institutions - it is a stitch up for career politicians and bureaucrats. A first past the post system that would occasionally give the chance of a clean sweep through the whole EU edifice would be a healthier thing and stimulate healthier debate. The worst thing in politics is when a politician who is voted out or seen to have failed in some way ends up with a better job. Chris Patten getting Hong Kong and Mandelson and Kinnock getting high positions in the EU stand out as appearing to be very much against an elective natural progression. In recent years we have added layers to the system - that complicates things but does not necessarily improve the democratic voice. I certainly do not want an elected UK second chamber to muddy the waters further. The Lords should continue be based on notions of merit and just be seen as a foil for the primary chamber (a role for which it should be respected). I personally would like to see a small number of the 'historic' lords kept in the chamber to maintain a level of historical coherence (we have thrown out too much of our history too quickly without having much idea of what should replace it - keeping a few 'real' lords in the place would at least be good for tourism I suspect!). As for the so called 'crisis'. There has been too much made of this - the expenses issue should have been sorted out much more quickly and quietly without so much reference to the past but with much more emphasis on having clear rules for the future. I am not at all convinced that change is necessary - what is needed is more strength of conviction about what we do have. This is the mother of democracy at work, and it is undervalued too much by current reformist attitudes. That said, in recent years we have come to a form of over legalistic managerial puritanism - and I am not sure that is the way I want things to be.

Personally I would like to see big reforms to both houses of parliament. I would scrap the House of Lords and replace them with a new second chamber that is elected in the same way as MP's are currently elected. Each 'MP' would represent a particular constituency and that would be their only job. I would even suggest that to be a member of this chamber you would have to resign your membership of any particular party as your sole duty would be to the constituents. I would then implement proportional representation (PR) in the main house with the PR working on a purely national basis. All of the seats would be assigned on the percentage of the national vote that a particular party received. You would then form a government from the people in this house. Legislation would start in the PR house and then move to the constituency based house the same way it currently does with the Commons and Lords. This would maintain local representation and scutiny whilst allowing minority parties their fair representation. I don't agree with any ideas to faff around the edges trying to integrate PR with first past the post in electing the same seat. We need a simple system that everyone understands.

I agree with Timothy about reforming both Houses. I think Labour has dithered on constitutional reform but, to its credit, has at last found the "cohones" to make some changes in the Commons. On the face of it, Timothy's suggestions regarding the Lords about reforming the Lords seem sensible but there may be other approaches. Critically, I feel strongly that whatever is done to improve the democratic accountability of the Lords, care must be taken to ensure it doesn't lose it's vital ability to hold the Executive to account. For me, the lack of democratic accountability of the Executive is the area that I feel most disappointed about in our current system of Government! God knows where we would have been at the moment if the Lords hadn't been there to challenge and block some of the more outrageous bits of legislation proposed by this Government? I understand that politics can be a "dirty" game, but I really hope that we can get away from the machine politics of recent years and back to a system within which MPs can be truly accountable to their constitutents and the Executive takes Parliament seriously. I still believe Labour can beat the Tories but, if that happens, we CANNOT go back to business as usual!

MPs should be independent of party and elected by a series of electoral colleges, the first one being a ward or one or two neighbouring wards.

That does however leave a slight problem of how to form a government. While I agree that prospective MPs should be elected on merit rather than party dogma, you cannot escape the fact that once in parliament, like minded MPs will group together and form bodies of opinion. Personally I would be rather worried if every MP was an independent candidate. Political philosophy is an important tool not only in shaping policy, but also in providing an identifiable theory to vote for.

Thank you for your reply which is very measured and thoughtful. Political parties often get much of the blame - and they are certainly not perfect - but there is not a democracy in the world (or in history) that has prospered without them in one form or another. Experiences suggest independent candidates simply do not have the time or resources to be successful, unless they already have a high profile (e.g. Martin Bell) or a hugely popular campaign behind them (Dr Richard Taylor). It may sound old fashioned in the days of Twitter and Youtube, but it is still volunteers knocking on doors, stuffing envelopes and raising money - or managing websites - who make campaigns happen. I agree with you about the importance of identity - and also that Governments need a cohesive programme across all departments in order to work. Do you think a reformed House of Lords can better balance the party system in the Commons? Perhaps through greater representation for the regions or capacity for representatives of voluntary or professional organisations - many of whom have considerable expertise - to make a contribution?

I have several conflicting ideas about the HOL. Firstly there would be no point in a wholly elected second chamber that merely mirrored the Commons (this would be made far worse if elected at the same time!). One virtue of an unelected house is its ability to make "independent" decisions, although that does lead to, as I think Plato said, rule by a class of "benevolent philosopher kings". As we have seen recently, we cannot rely on the good nature of some of our politicians to always make the right decision. Unelected members also give rise to the likes of Lord Mandelson, who I feel is in a wholly untenable position. This then leaves us with electing members, at different times to the commons, perhaps for longer periods of time, or using the US system of electing by thirds. Whichever way, it seems inevitable that a party system (or at least party influence) would emerge. Maybe we could construct a case for one chamber elected on a fully proportional basis, the other by FPTP. Just to throw another spanner in the works. If both houses are elected, their roles will need to be so carefully and strictly defined as to be almost unworkable. One could imagine a Labour lower house, a Tory upper house, and the leader of each house claiming a mandate from the people, and chaos raining down on all!

I am very much in agreement with you Linda. I feel that one's MP should represent their constituency and be someone to whom the constituents can turn. However I do feel we need to get away from the flip-flopping between Labour and Conservative governments and the two party system that has dominated over the last 70 odd years. I would love to see more parties represented in Parliament, such as the Greens and Respect. I would also like to see the Liberal Democrats have a larger presence in the House of Commons as befits the proportion of votes they actually get nationally. Of course the danger would be that some parties I would not approve of, such as UKIP and the BNP might also gain seats, but that is always the risk in a democracy. I don't know whether it needs a change of electoral system or just that people take more of an interest in politics and don't just vote the way they always have or the way their parents or peers do. I certainly think more people would vote for the Liberal Democrats if the media, other politicians and comedians were not always putting them down. After all both Labour and Conservative have stolen most of their ideas; which has brought both parties into the centre ground, that is actually the natural home for the Lib Dems.

One system would be to take account of local and county elections, setting up a multi tired system from which representatives are sent forward to parliament thus keeping a closer contact to the roots of the people.

Frankly PR is a red herring and serves only to obfuscate the desparate state of affairs which currently exists. The current electoral system is more than 140 years old, and in need of root and branch surgery, not tinkering at the edges. What is required is real enfranchisement and democracy for the electorate. There is some refreshing debate taking place on this subject at http://www.power2010.org.uk/.

I am against proportional representation (PR) as I believe that it will lead to week government. This Country needs strong government and strong leadership. Anyway, "the Primer Minister, Gordon Brown, promises a referendum on the subject is meaningless. A referendum on the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty was promised by Gordon Brown and his predecessor Tony Blair. Did we have a referendum? No!! So he went ahead and ratified the treaty without the consent of the British People. So can he be trusted? Emphatically....NO!!

What this country needs is effective and representative government which works for the population and not the various cabals and cliques as at present. We have had "strong government" q.v. Mrs Thatcher, and it was largely responsible for the distressing social mess this country is now saddled with.

One of the reasons I supported labour in 1997 was their (supposed)support for proportional representation. I was disappointed that this was ignored when a large majority was won. This double standard was one of the reasons I transfered my vote to the liberals. I believe proportional representation should be introduced with discussion on the various methods and a referendum to establish the outcome.

Thanks for your comment - you may have heard that in yesterday's Labour Party Conference Speech the Prime Minister has made a commitment for a referendum on introducing an alternative vote system. Linda Gilroy MP

I'm all for the AV system of voting, but we were promised a review at the very least of the voting system when labour came to power in 1997, but nothing happened. When then can I expect a referendum on this issue... in another 12 years time?

I agree with much of what Bob H. has said above, especially that PR can lead to weak government where, for example, the party of government may have a majority but not an absolute majority in the chamber. In this case minority parties can wield an undue influence, leading to their 'doing deals' with a major party in order to swing the vote in a particular direction. One thing I feel strongly about is that MPs should have employment outside Parliament before, and maybe during their time as Members. While I realise that coping with two 'jobs' would be difficult for some, it would go some way toward ensuring that (a) they have experience of the 'real world' beyond the 'Westminster village", and (b) that they would not be entirely dependent on the political scene for their livelihood. On the subject of referenda, Gordon can easily talk now about having a referendum on a parliamentary voting system - which I agree is an important topic, - but both he and Tony Blair shied away from having one on the Lisbon Treaty when it didn't suit them. So I too would not trust him to deliver IF - heaven forbid - Labour should be returned to power in May!