Despite protestations to the contrary, the Conservatives’ attempt to remake the electoral map of the UK is a blatant attempt at trying to stack the electoral odds in its favour. If successful, it would severely restrict Labour’s chances of ever being a single governing party again (as well as going some way towards shoring up the coalition, which is its main aim).
The proposals to reform the voting system, reduce the number of MPs and change the size of constituencies are nothing more than opportunistic gerrymandering. This underhand attempt to bring about a shift in the electoral balance is the work of two Tory boys, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, who want to ensure their brand of politics is almost always guaranteed to have a decisive influence in governing this country.
Remember, there is no electoral mandate for the Government to railroad this through the House of Commons. There is no part if the Conservative Party’s manifesto that mentions such radical constitutional changes, which would have a massive psephological effect. Any attempt to transform Britain’s electoral map so drastically would have no credibility unless it was done as the result of a royal commission on the issue.
The Government’s plans are deficient on several levels. First, the idea that a referendum of such constitutional significance is not important enough to have a stand-alone ballot is deeply worrying. Clegg and his ilk bleat on about the cost, but who said democracy was cheap? Holding the referendum on the same day as next year’s local elections demonstrates the lack of confidence the Government has in the electorate.
One of the major flaws in Clegg’s plan for a referendum on changing the electoral system is that there will not be a level playing field. Local elections in England next year are not taking place universally, so any attempt to piggyback a referendum on them would produce a distorted outcome and discriminate against a large swathe of voters.
Further, not only would be there discrimination between voters in different local authority electoral districts in England, where only 33 per cent of voters will have the opportunity to go the polls, but there would be a discrepancy with voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where 100 per cent of the electorate will have additional motivation to cast their votes in an election and a referendum. The projected choice is also discriminatory between possible systems of counting votes, and is a take-it-or-leave-it choice about the alternative vote system.
A dead vote under first past the post can still be a dead vote under AV. What if someone doesn’t want to transfer? There are probably many Labour voters who no longer wish to see Liberal Democrat support enhanced by their transfers and do not ever want to see their vote transfer to a Tory.
Why should a vote be viewed as something vague that cannot be taken at face value? No doubt, the big campaign in constituencies where the Lib Dems are in second place will involve persuading people to transfer. But why should they? Why should many thousands of Labour votes in areas that have a Tory majority be viewed as transferrable to the Lib Dems? Why not have a system of equalisation, whereby voters’ intentions are still taken into account, even if they are not for the winning candidate in a specific constituency? Why can’t first preferences be totalled regionally, so that a system of proportionality is introduced, but based on primary choices rather than secondary ones.
In many respects, AV is as fraught with the same imperfections as first past the post. For example, if you live in a constituency where Labour is in third place, your vote for Labour is totally disregarded and has no effect concerning Labour. It becomes a full-value vote for the Lib Dems, if you transfer to them. A dead vote (one you choose not to transfer) remains a dead vote.
Proposals about the north of Scotland as an exception so that three Lib Dem MPs with large constituencies but sparse populations are ring-fenced from the proposal, constitute a scam based on the self-interest of this opportunistic Government.
The proposals to reduce the number of MPs and equalise constituency sizes is another manoeuvre to tilt the balance so far away from Labour as to make it extremely difficult to elect a Labour government with a working majority. Cameron and his Tory backwoodsmen will be the main beneficiary of this so-called reform.
It is the Tories’ exploitation of the electoral roll as a base for calculation that gives credence to their proposals. Yet it is also their greatest weakness. Size of population should be the common denominator in these discussions. The electoral register, together with local and central government records, should be used to calculate the size of constituencies. The results could actually be beneficial to Labour, not just in blunting the opportunistic aspects of the Tories proposals but in identifying urban areas where mass-action campaigns could get people registered to vote.
Why not move elections to a Sunday, so that the majority of working people have the same opportunity to choose when they vote as the rest of the electorate? The concept of equality of constituency size, based on population and not the electoral roll, should not considered until this levelling of the playing field is brought about.
We should look to motivate and facilitate non-voters, not tinker with a system that disadvantages people who have to go to work. Sticking with the tradition of holding parliamentary elections on a Thursday benefits the leisured classes and should be changed to maximise turnout.
This, of all choices surrounding the conduct of polls, should be fair and equitable. The best solution is to hold elections over a full weekend with polls opening at 7am on Saturday and closing 7pm on Sunday. It is the “benign neglect” attitude of the right and centre-right when it comes to increasing voter registration that is so self-serving. The Tories know the disenfranchised would be more likely to vote for left or centre-left parties if they were registered.
The disgraceful scenes of voters being turned away in several constituencies at the 2010 general election must never be repeated. An Electoral Commission report based on the information on May 7 provided by returning officers said there was not a major problem. That’s like accepting a report from the Metropolitan Police concluding policing of demonstrations has the overwhelming support of Londoners.
The labour movement should actively oppose this squalid and opportunistic gerrymandering. No reform of the voting system should be instituted until it has been the subject of a royal commission and proposed recommendations subsequently included in party manifestos.
