AV referendum and 600 seats
The detailled legislation for the boundary review and the AV referendum is now out - if you are not a hardcore political anorak, you may wish to skip this post! For those who are left, here are the details.
Alternative Vote is the more straightforward section. The referendum is May 5th and the question is “Do you want the United Kingdom to adopt the “alternative vote” system instead of the current “first past the post” system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?”. There is no minimum turnout or anything on the referendum and it is binding – if the referendum is won, the minister must bring the provisions introducing AV (which are all in the Bill) into effect.
Rules for boundary changes are much more complicated. First, the legislation proposes boundary reviews every five years, significantly speeding up the current timetable where they occur between 8 and 12 years apart (normally at the latter end). With fixed term Parliaments of 5 years, that means seats would change every Parliament (though it would also mean that the changes were normally quite small).
There will one national UK quota, rather than seperate quotas for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is, however, an exception to this for Northern Ireland, where if the number of seats Northern Ireland is entitled to is more than a third away from a whole number (as it probably will be this time round), they will have their own quota to aim at, which prevents the boundary commission in Northern Ireland being left with an impossible task.
The quota will indeed be based around the electorate of the UK, minus the two protected seats, divided by 598. All seats must be within 5% of the quota, with three exceptions: the two preserved seats (the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland), Northern Ireland under the circumstances discussed above, and any seat with an area above 12,000 sq. kilometers where the commission is satisfied it is not possible to get it within quota. As proposed before, there is a cap of 13,000 sq km on the size of consistuencies.
The Commissions may still take in account special geographical considerations, like size and shape, local government boundaries, local ties and minimal change (except, that is, for the coming boundary change, when they should not pay heed to minimising disruption). They may now also take into account the European electoral regions (making some of the possiblities I wrote about in this post less likely). All these considerations are subject to the rule on seats being within 5% of quota, which means that the boundary commissions will have to cross county boundaries if it is necessary in order to get within 5% of quota.
There is no mention of splitting council wards, but then, the old legislation doesn’t refer to them outside Northern Ireland either. In practice, the rule about seats being within 5% of quota may compel Boundary Commissions to split wards in places like Birmingham with very large wards.
In terms of speeding up the review process, the Bill is pretty brutal. Local inquiries on boundary changes are abolished – though it is slightly balanced out by the period for written representations being extended from 1 month to 12 weeks.
All of this is, of course, subject to whatever amendments get made as it trundles through the Commons. I expect some bits may have a tricky passage.
Filed under: AV referendum
@ Sue
Why STV not some other form of PR? What’s your thinking?
@Amber
I though you had STV for local elections in Scotland in 2007?
I have to say PR would be my choice as in some parts of Europe. We will adopt it at some point ! I will right as usual !
PR is a fantastic system! I have many papers on this. I wrote a few articles myself.
“We need Martyn and Jay to explain STV.”
…but you have just advocated it for Labour-on the grounds of fairness,
So I presume you can explain it Sue.
In my area, Southwark, we have a high level of illiteracy, this makes STV non-viable, as it does in any area of illiteracy and inumeracy.
@ Johnty
I though you had STV for local elections in Scotland in 2007?
———————————————————-
We have always had STV for Holyrood. To be honest, only the SNP did much campaigning in the past. Most people, as far as I’m aware, don’t know or care too much about how STV actually works.
I think 2011 will be different. The parties will campaign hard & there will be voter interest about how STV & AV works – because of the referendum being on the same day – so I, & other Labour campaigners, will need to make the effort to find out all about it.
@Ken
If STV is used in Northern Ireland assembly elections and for local elections in Scotland (and for parliamentary elections in the Irish Republic) then presumably it might work even in Southwark. Or are the English and Welsh more stupid than the Irish and Scots?
@Amber
I thought you had the additional member system for Holyrood.
The issue of voting systems is an academic one and merely serves to act as a diversion, it obviously only appeals to losers, since winners don’t need to change anything.
“We have always had STV for Holyrood. Most people, as far as I’m aware, don’t know or care too much about how STV actually works. ”
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@JOHNTY……….The losers could be !
JOHNTY
How “double dare you” of accusing us English as being stupid!
If STV is used for the Scots and Irish then that says it all !
If your neighbour put his head in the gas oven would you?
Indeed, we have always had AMS for Hollyrood! Though the reason Labour agreed to this was largely to make it harder for the nationalists. STV was introduced for the council elections in 2007 and is the system I prefer on balance and I don’t think you need to be particularly intelligent to work it out!
However, any improvement on FPTP for Westminster would be desireable and everyone who agrees with electoral reform must support AV in the referendum and I would guard against playing party politics. If this is lost, reform could be set back considerably.
FPTP vs PR vs AV vs STV vs AV+
In early October I am giving a politics lecture to students at Reading University on the above systems. I would welcome any person on this site who would like to attend… Come along it’s going to be fascinating!
@David1 – “Under the current system, not even 99%+ of the MPs can dissolve parliament. The power to dissolve parliament rests not with parliament but with the Prime Minister. Giving parliament some control over its own dissolution is a shift of power from the executive to the legislature. It does not deprive parliament of a power which it never had.
And – “This is easy to understand. Basic constitutional stuff. One wonders why so many people fell asleep in class.”
This is incorrect. If a government loses a confidence motion they cannot continue as a minority – by precedent if not by statute. Such a situation would be completely constitutionally intolerable, when the house has made clear it does not support a government yet the government keeps going. This is why the bill has a mechanism allowing for an election following a no confidence vote but where a dissolution motion cannot be passed.
Also, the PM does not have the power to dissolve Parliament. He can ask the monarch for a dissolution, but she is only obliged to accept that request if there is no other potential PM who can command the confidence of the house. When a PM requests a dissolution he/she is formally asked if there is another who can command the confidence of the house. Only if the answer is no (and the monarch accepts this) is a dissolution agreed. The authority lies entirely with the crown.
This is easy to understand. Basic constitutional stuff. Were you asleep in class?
@ James & Johnty
There you go…. I thought Additional Member was a type of STV. Shows what I know
YouGov 41/36/14
@ Colin
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
————————————————-
We really do not know & do not care. We vote for whatever candidate(s) we like & go home – job done.
@ Alec
YouGov 41/36/14
———————————————–
Thank you.
I’m wondering if Ed Miliband winning the leadership would give Labour a boost. What do you think?
@James
Totally agree. Pople who want STV and intend to vote no are deluding themselves if they think that a defeat for AV will strengthen their cause.
Politicos will naturally try to assess whether their tribe will gain or lose by a change in voting system. The correct question though is whether ordinary voters will gain or lose. Who honestly thinks that the right to rank candidates in order of preference actually reduces the power of individual electors?
@Amber Star – not sure. I like Ed M’s record on climate change. (BTW – looks like a review of the Renewable Heat Incentive scheme is trying to downgrade it, which along with the overnight closing of the LCBP grant funding doesn’t look good for the coalitions green credentials).
Other than that, I really don’t know.
@ Amber………….Ed Miliband, the media would have a field day, he is totally unsuitable to lead his party, let alone the country.
Looks like Ed Balls is out of the race, the others don’t impress, time for some new blood, any suggestions ?
@ Ken
What makes you say that?
@Amber………….Ed Balls was expecting Unite to back him, they’ve gone for Ed Mili, EB is now contemplating withdrawing from the race and backing EM. Various Sunday papers, must therefore be right.
@Amber……….I asked Éoin whether the Miliband’s religion would have an effect on voter preference, or international acceptance, bearing in mind he snubbed the Saudi’s, Éoin, true to form, said he felt the Brits wouldn’t care, I’m not so sure. How do you feel ?
“Many on here argued that 5 years was very bad indeed when you have a leader like GB.”
And Cameron spent much of last year demanding an election before the previous five-year term had ended, yet as soon as he beomes PM, five years is supposed to be okay!
Ken
I wondered about the Miliband’s religion too, only to be told that they are atheists. However they are ethnically Jewish, and i wondered if this would affect the Labour vote in Muslim areas.
Also, re the AV referendum etc, I wish they would address the widespread electoral (particularly postal) fraud before meeing with the system. Otherwise we will still have acorrupt system, but it will be harder to spot and prove.
@ Ken –
“hey i am a muslim but i really wanna see him as the leader… he is the best person at the moment in labour party btw all the jews are not bad like all the muslims are not good,,, thnx”
The above (if it helps
) is a faithful reproduction from a thread which contained some rants about David Miliband, who is in fact an atheist (cf Michael Foot). I suspect hardliners affected by a percieved heritage issue either do not vote on principle, or vote otherwise than Labour.
To be brutally honest, EM is good frontbench material, but not the one for the top job imho.
@Billy Bob……..I think you’re right about EM, he seems a bit lightweight, DM is the obvious choice now, but I doubt if he would inspire the electorate. I think Labour have got a problem, they need a fresh start but they are relying on the old guard, they are an easy target for the opposition, IMO, they should select someone new, fresh, and untainted by the old TB/GB years. There must be plenty of newcomers champing at the bit, but I’m no expert on Labour MP’s.