AV equals disproportional representation

We had an excellent debate here last night – although we lost the vote as usual – on the Government’s belated plan to have a referendum on the Alternative Vote system of voting to replace our current First Past The Post (FPTP) method for Westminster elections. I support FPTP and think AV the least fair and most volatile of options.There was a good deal of criticism of the Government trying to move the goal posts after a long stint in government to a system that is thought to favour their narrow Party interest.

There was also some hilarity at the position of the Lib Dems who backed the Government on AV, even though the AV system is less proportional than FPTP. I challenged David Howarth Lib Dem (Cambridge):

“Mr. Heald: After all these years of going on “Question Time” and other programmes saying that the Liberal Democrats want proportional representation, does it not feel a bit odd to the hon. Gentleman to be arguing for disproportional representation? Why are the Liberal Democrats going to vote for something that Lord Jenkins and so many other commentators have described as unfair and disproportionate?

David Howarth: We will vote for amendment (b) to Government new clause 88 so that the referendum is between first past the post and a proportional system. What will we do if that is defeated? Although the new clause is a very small step in the right direction, there are two truths. First, changing the electoral system is on the political agenda, which is a big and important point for us. Secondly, AV is a preferential system, which we are in favour of. The system we support-STV-is a preferential system, but it just happens to be proportional as well.”

Despite the response, I continue to think it was out of character for modern Lib Dems to back AV. Of course, they have a long chequered record, the Liberals having been against Proportional Representation when they were a major Party of Government and then in favour when they lost power. Then briefly they flirted with AV in the 1930s. Bill Cash made this point accusing Lib Dems of cynicism:

“in the heady days long ago when Lloyd George had a big majority, he said that proportional representation was

“a device for defeating democracy…bringing faddists of all kinds into Parliament and…disintegrating parties”?

Then in 1931, Lloyd George changed his position, and in an electoral reform Bill proposed the alternative vote.”

The Alternative Vote (AV) system, which like FPTP is based upon single member constituencies, is a majoritarian system. Essentially, AV allows voters to keep a representative MP for their constituency, but also rank both their first and second choices.

AV operates in single-member constituencies. Each voter is required to rank the various candidates in an order of preference. It is possible for the first count to produce an absolute majority but, with more than two candidates, this becomes less likely. If no candidate secures an absolute majority at the first count, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. His or her second preference votes are then redistributed among the other candidates, being added to their own first preference votes. If this does not produce an absolute majority, the next lowest candidate is eliminated and his or her second preference votes redistributed, and so on until someone does reach an absolute majority.

The AV system is used in a number of elections around the world, including those for the Australian House of Representatives, the Australian Legislative Assemblies of all states and territories (bar Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory), Irish Presidential elections, By-elections to the Dáil (the lower house of the Irish Parliament), By-elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Papua New Guinea National Parliament, the Fijian House of Representatives, and numerous American Mayoral and district elections.

In December 1997, the new Labour Government, in line with its Manifesto commitment, established an Independent Commission on the Voting System, chaired by the late Lord (Roy) Jenkins of Hillhead, with a mandate to recommend the best alternative ‘system or combination of systems’ to the existing First Past the Post system of election to the Westminster Parliament.

The Commission’s central recommendation in its report of October 1998 was that the best alternative for Britain to the existing system was a two-vote mixed, described as either ‘limited AMS’ (Additional Member System) or ‘AV Top-up’. Under such a system, the majority of MPs (80 to 85 per cent) would continue to be elected on an individual constituency basis, with the remainder elected on a corrective ‘top-up’ basis which would significantly reduce the disproportionality and the geographical divisiveness which are inherent in FPTP.

The Commission further recommended that, within this mixed system, the constituency members should be elected by the Alternative Vote (AV). The Commission argued that, on its own, AV would be unacceptable, because:

“… of the danger it might increase rather than reduce disproportionality and might do so in a way which is unfair to the Conservative Party.”

Following the Commission’s report, however, it became increasingly clear that the Government was not considering reforming the Westminster electoral system with any urgency. Indeed, speaking in June 2001, Lord Jenkins suggested that the proposal had been kicked into the long grass by the Government, commenting:

“I am beginning to feel a bit sorry for the grasshoppers which must find things rather overcrowded in their territory…I thought Tony Blair was going to take my report seriously and I believe he does in a way take it seriously…”

The main argument against AV is that it can be less proportional than First-Past-the-Post – research by ICM immediately after the 1997 General Election showed that Conservatives would have won only 110 seats under AV – a wildly distorted and unfair outcome.

It also encourages dishonest use of second preferences, distorting the election if, for example, the contest will be fought between two strong candidates, supporters of one would rank third parties above the other, even if the other is technically their second choice.

My entry in the Legg report

This is what it says about my expenses in today’s Legg report (on page 75):

Mr Oliver Heald MP
North East Hertfordshire

                      Mr Heald has no issues.

Statement on Afghanistan

The Foreign Secretary announced the creation of a UN sponsored Peace and Reintegration Trust Fund for Afghanistan. The idea is to give those who are sick of the fighting, and not part of Al-Qaeda, the chance to become part of the new Afghanistan. They will create a fund to pay for members of the Taliban to come over to President Karzai’s Government forces. It is hoped that this will begin to reconcile the Pashtun people, some of whom are traditionally allied with the Taliban, with the rest of Afghan society. Our brave servicemen are winning military battles, but we also need to win the hearts and minds battle.

This is worthwhile because reconciliation has long been identified as key step towards peace in Afghanistan, something I highlighted as long ago as October 2008 in a debate I initiated in Parliament.

I said: “One long-standing problem has been that not enough Afghan Pashtun tribal leaders are involved in the process of government in Afghanistan. I welcome that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia had a breakfast meeting in Mecca with the Afghan Government and with Pashtun leaders, some of whom are aligned with Taliban officials…Do the Government feel that there is some prospect of sitting down with Pashtun tribal leaders who may be aligned with the Taliban and reaching the sort of political compromise that generals have been talking about recently?”

Speaker Bercow joins campaign for a proper General Election night

On Monday I was pleased to hear Speaker Bercow give his support to the “Save General Election night campaign” in the Chamber. A number of councils are planning to count the ballots the day after the General Election and I think this would be wrong. So back in October I was one of the initial MPs to campaign to “Save General Election night” and sign the cross-party Early Day Motion against these plans. One of the local papers even covered the story (see my original press release here).

I think it’s important that we find out the results of a General Election as soon as possible. People want to know the result of the election and the television hype around the event can really help to enthuse people about our democracy. Speaker Bercow’s support is a sign that the campaign is building momentum and hopefully we will be able to force the councils to sit up and pay attention to public opinion.

Positive Politics

Do you ever think that politics has become too negative? Most people want politicians to make a difference and change things for the better. Yet all too often we hear sniping and sneering at the ideas of others. I think it is a refreshing feature of David Cameron’s leadership that he is upbeat and positive. Whether in pushing the environment up the national agenda or explaining that public spending must be controlled or saying that he will protect the NHS, he is clearly setting out his policies for Britain. This contrasts with the recent attempt by the Prime Minister to attack him because of his background. I think politics should be about what’s best for Britain’s future, not puerile personal attacks of this sort. I wonder if Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt share my concerns and that this prompted them to act as they did yesterday. As a result of poor economic decisions, the UK is in a mess and we are all in it together. We need to work hand in hand to tackle the crisis. So, let’s have a New Year’s Resolution, Prime Minister to get your priorities right, stop dithering and take the measures needed to start to move Britain forward. Britain can’t go on like this. It’s time for change.

Cameron promises to cut the deficit, and NOT the NHS

David Cameron has pledged to protect NHS spending and outlined the Conservative Reform Plan for the NHS.

David has explained how much worse health outcomes have become under Labour and pointed out that life expectancy and infant mortality rates for poor and rich have now widened so much that they are as big as they were in Victorian times!

I think that it’s a very good idea to make the NHS “accountable to the people, not the politicians”, and I also like the idea of focusing spending on preventable diseases and public health priorities.

In total David set out 20 ways in which he wants to improve Britain’s health services, including:
- end the scandal of mixed sex accommodation and increase the number of single rooms in hospitals;
- give mothers real choice over where to have their baby and introduce local “maternity networks” to ensure that mothers can safely access the right care, in the right place, at the right time; and
- allow everyone, on retirement, to protect their homes from being sold to fund residential care cost by paying a one-off insurance premium of £8,000

Congratulations to a local businessman

On Saturday I popped into the Viceroy of India in Buntingford to congratulate Mr Chowdury on his 25 years of business in the town. Congratulations Mr Chowdhury!

Me with Mr Chowdhury

Today’s figures on Youth Unemployment

Today’s figures on youth unemployment are shocking. Almost 1 million young people are looking for work in the UK. This is much higher than in 1998. Our young people should not become strangers to the World of Work. The loss they suffer is not just the lack of money from wages, but also the sapping of morale and aspiration.

Locally youth unemployment is almost double what it was a year ago. Conservatives propose to reward small and medium sized businesses for taking on new employees and to improve the quality and number of apprenticeships. We need a stronger response to the recession too with a sound approach to public spending and an effective loan guarantee scheme to help business survive. Let’s hope we have a better year in 2010.

Dreaming of a White Christmas?

It’s snowing at Westminster! Here’s a picture:

Parliament Square 16 December 2009

I wonder if it will look as nice as it did last year when it snowed.

Big Ben last winter

Betting agents, have the odds for a White Christmas this year at 9/4, fingers crossed.

Kelly Recommendations To Be Written Into Law

I was delighted when the Leader of the House of Commons conceded that legislation would be required to implement the recommendations in the Kelly Report on expenses and that they will bring in the changes.

At the time of the Queens Speech I asked the Leader of House, Harriet Harman, if she would support a Bill to implement the 11 law changes recommended by the Kelly Committee, her reaction was lukewarm and confused – saying “we do not want to legislate if that is unnecessary” (see the Hansard record of my request on 19 November, here).

All the main parties accepted the recommendations in the Committee’s report, yet the Labour Government stalled over the necessary law changes.

When I asked Harriet Harman if she would put the recommendations into law before the general election, she said that she thought some of the recommendations could be implemented using powers that already existed. Yet it was clear from the Kelly Report that this was wrong.