 | 'We will hold a referendum on the system for elections to the House of Commons within the first term of a new parliament,' A commitment which appeared in a restricted-access Labour paper, called The Policy Handbook, which was circulated to all General Election candidates as the definitive statement of the party's expected programme of action if it won power in the May 1 poll. |  |
The Prime Minister will greet the eagerly-awaited Jenkins Report as a valuable, thought-provoking document which should kick-start a vital national debate about whether to stick with voting by first past the post or switch to a form of proportional representation.
All voters will play their part in making that crucial decision in an eventual referendum. In the meantime, Mr Blair will have to tiptoe warily through a political minefield and carefully weigh every statement he makes on the explosive issue of electoral reform. PR, which could transform the British political landscape forever to the benefit of Labour and the Liberal Democrats, is a uniquely difficult issue for the Prime Minister. How he responds to today's historic report, and how he deals with its inevitably difficult consequences in the months ahead, will be one of the toughest tests of his premiership.
In essence, Mr Blair will be damned by some of his closest colleagues if he rejects the Jenkins proposals and damned by an awful lot more of them if he accepts them. Politically, PR puts Mr Blair between a rock and a hard place. Whatever he does, it will be painful.
It may sound unthinkable 18 months after the Prime Minister led Labour to a record 179-seat landslide, but if Mr Blair were to handle PR with uncharacteristic ineptness, it could lead to his downfall. That is how strong feelings are inside the Labour Party over the one issue on which, unusually, Labour MPs are allowed to speak their minds freely.
Until now, the Prime Minister has continually professed himself to be "unpersuaded" of the need to jettison the time-honoured system whereby voters simply put an X on the ballot-paper beside the name of their preferred candidate.
While that may still be Mr Blair's true feeling, from today he will stop using the "unpersuaded" mantra and instead speak favourably of Lord Jenkins's proposals - but without explicitly endorsing them.
They are called Alternative Vote Plus and involve slashing the number of Westminster constituencies from 659 to around 500 and introducing for the first time about 100 of a new class of MP, called the "top-up" member. The new procedure, designed to make general elections "fairer", is broadly similar to the new voting system which Scots will pioneer in the inaugural Holyrood elections next May - though not nearly as proportional.
First past the posters have been letting it be known that "there's no way Tony will back Jenkins". According to this influential lobby, which represents a clear majority of Labour members, Mr Blair will never - indeed could never - endorse moving over to a system which could see the loss of perhaps 80 Labour MPs.
However, supporters of PR have been telling people that the Prime Minister has been quietly trying to persuade Cabinet sceptics to back Jenkins as a way of realigning British politics to the advantage of the centre-left and ensuring that the first hundred years of the new millennium are a progressive century.
According to this theory, Mr Blair, despite Labour's huge majority - 63.4% of the seats in the House of Commons - still nurses a dream of near-permanent Labour-Lib Dem government, or something very like it. This, they say, is what he means by his talk, less open now, of wanting to see a new "pluralism" replacing the sterile, dogmatic predictability of two-party, adversarial politics.
Expect to hear the arguments for and against PR aired endlessly in the coming months. The anti-PR lobby will stress that first past the post is simple, clear and easily understood, and helps ensure strong government by letting the voters throw out unpopular administrations.
Critics of PR will repeat endlessly what George Foulkes says elsewhere on this page today: that matching votes received to seats won may make for interesting mathematics but makes for unstable government.
One first past the poster this week cited Churchill's maxim that democracy may not be the perfect form of government, but it beats every other available option, as an argument against PR.
However, fans of PR will insist that there must be a better system available which ensures that, for example, a party which gets 17.5% of the popular vote should not end up with zero seats. That's what happened to the Tories in Scotland last year. They, though, are against any change, despite expectations that it could speed their revival.
Is it a tactical vote, a strategic vote, or is it a wasted vote? How do you decide where your cross on the ballot paper goes? And at polling stations - which presumably now include supermarkets and post offices while buying baked beans or collecting a pension do you really think it counts?
For as long as I can remember I, and the Scottish National Party, have supported proportional representation as a strong principle to underpin democracy. Already limited forms of proportional representation are to be effected for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the European Parliament next year. But that is just a beginning.
Two bastions remain: Westminster and local government. The Jenkins Commission opens up a new debate on this subject. As a member of "Make Votes Count" I pen these words to encourage everyone to become involved.
Proportional representation is not about party political advantage: it is about voter value.
First past the post (FPTP) systems bring incredible anomalies.
At local level, candidates can be elected on minority votes. Individually I am only too well aware of this. In October 1974, the scenes at Bearsden Cross were probably of incredulity as the SNP had taken the seat on 31.2% of the vote. With a majority of the two football teams and less than 500 votes between the three main candidates I reached not only Westminster but also The Guinness Book of Records.
I held that record until the 1992 General Election when Sir Russell Johnston hung on to his seat with 26% of the popular vote. I had a personal interest in this given my husband Fergus's involvement. It's amazing what husbands will do to remove a wife's name from the record books.
I also remember that, during my first election in Moray (1987), Labour Party members and activists actually put up Margaret Ewing posters in their windows; the SNP reference had been removed and replaced by the word TACTICALLY!
So why, having benefited from this anomaly, am I therefore arguing the case for proportional representation?
Firstly, I believe the opportunity to cast votes honestly contributes to the democratic process. How often have I hard the sentence "It's a waste of time to vote X, Y, Z in this area"? Too many times, and that means a democratic deficit which alienates people from a genuine sense of participatory democracy.
Secondly, Governments can have sweeping victories in numerical terms without the mandate of most voters. Forty two out of 45 European countries use proportional systems, so why should UK voters be placed in such a minority?
In the 1997 election, it took 32,336 Labour votes to elect a Labour MP, 58,199 for a Conservative and 103,590 for an SNP MP.
As a result, the Labour Government was formed on 43.2% of the vote but 63.4% of seats; neither the 17.5% of Scottish voters who voted Conservative nor the 22.3% of Surrey voters for Labour are represented in Parliament. The SNP with 22.1% of the votes has only 8.3% of seats. It is an arithmetical and political jungle.
Thirdly, those of us supporting changes have always advocated the continuing geographic link between MP and a constituency whilst looking at systems which reflect overall political opinion.
I come back to where I started - it's all about value for voters. No system of proportional representation is perfect, but the principle is indisputable.
A belief that a vote really counts encourages turnout. Opinion polls show that PR does stimulate voter participation. The UK has been ranked 14th out of 25 Western European nations in terms of turnout in the 1990s.
As we look to the millennium and we talk about a new approach to politics in Scotland, the chattering classes have no exclusive rights.
The opportunity and the pressure on the present Government to offer a referendum on change is critical. I hope the voters will respond.
* Margaret Ewing is the SNP's parliamentary leader and is MP for Moray. In 1997 she won her seat with 41.57% of the vote on a turnout of 68.21%.
The principal argument of those who are campaigning in favour of Porportional Representation is that it is "fairer," or more democratic. But democracy should be principally about accountability of individual politicians and governments to the people, not arithmetical exactness. That is why we must reject any form of PR for elections to Westminster and stick to first past the post.
All forms of PR have four main faults. They break the link between the politician and the constituency, give more power to party bureaucrats at the expense of local people; result in a tyranny of the minority and produce relatively unstable government.
In Britain, all MPs are chosen by local people and have a responsibility to all their constituents, irrespective of party. My constituents know that I have a duty to pursue their cases, and to represent their interests and concerns.
This is an important part of democracy and of the rights of individuals. It should not be discarded lightly. The further one moves towards porportionality, the more the constituency link is lost.
Even the proponents of PR accept this. In order to try to deal with it, they propose a compromise of a mixed system of constituency and "list" MPs. But this results in even greater problems.
List MPs, instead of being chosen by, and therefore accountable to local people, are chosen by and so are accountable to the party hierarchy. The adoption of party lists results in a major shift of accountability away from the electorate towards back-room officials.
It makes it less likely that free-thinking MPs such as Dennis Skinner of Teddy Taylor will be selected. That may be welcome to the bureaucrats, but it is not an enhancement of democracy.
Also our present system ensures that the party which gets the most votes forms the Government. That is not the case with PR. In almost every country with a proportional system, we have seen examples of how small parties hold the balance in forming a government.
In Germany, the tiny Liberals (FDP) have switched from supporting the Socialists (SPD) to the Conservatives (CDU) and thereby changed the party in power without even the formality of an election.
And in other countries we observe the tyranny of the minority parties, from the extreme religious parties which have held the balance of power in Israel, to the New Zealand First party which put the minority Tories in power, only later to split and leave them with a minority Government only just clinging to power.
It is this instability of Government which is the third feature of PR systems. Britain has had some of the most stable governments of any democratic country. However, it was the 18 years of Tory Government, particularly the Thatcher years, which turned some Labour members to PR as a way of hoping to ensure it doesn't happen again.
This is an entirely false analysis. It was not the voting system which enabled the Tories to stay in power for so long. It was the failure of Labour to sort out our party and have the right policies and leadership to take advantage of a system in which we only needed 42% of the vote to win last year.
It is not difficult to see why the Liberals have been pushing for PR for so long, or why organisations which back them, like the Rowntree Trust, have put lots of resources into campaigns for electoral reform.
Equally it is understandable that other minority parties see PR as their opportunity to at last get seats, and even hold the balance of power.
But I fail to see why anythingother than masochism or extreme philanthropy motivates some Labour members, even left wingers, to be so passionate about a system which, if adopted, makes further majority Labour governments less likely, if not impossible.
In the House of Commons we have a system which works, which gives power to local people to choose or change their MPs, where governments are chosen and thrown out by the electorate at elections and not by politicians in smoke filled rooms.
* George Foulkes is the International Development Minister and MP Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley.
This is how Scotland's four major parties have fared in recent general elections under first past the post voting (SNP in Scotland only)
1997 General Election: across the United Kingdom (659 seats)
Conservatives:
Total votes 9,600,940 -- 30.7% of all votes cast
Total seats 165 -- 25.0% of seats available
Labour:
Total votes 13,517,911 -- 43.2% of all votes cast
Total seats 418 -- 63.4% of seats available
Liberal Democrats:
Total votes 5,243,440 -- 16.8% of all votes cast
Total seats 46 -- 7.0% of seats available
1997 General Election: in Scotland (72 seats)
Conservatives:
Total votes 493,059 -- 17.5% of all votes cast
Total seats none -- 0.0% of seats available
Labour:
Total votes 1,283,321 -- 45.6% of all votes cast
Total seats 56 -- 77.7% of seats available
Liberal Democrats:
Total votes 366,160 -- 13.0% of all votes cast
Total seats ten -- 13.9% of seats available
Scottish National Party:
Total votes 621,514 -- 21.9% of all votes cast
Total seats six -- 8.4% of seats available
1992 General Election: across the United Kingdom (651 seats)
Conservatives:
Total votes 14,093,890 -- 41.9% of all votes cast
Total seats 336 -- 51.6% of seats available
Labour:
Total votes 11,559,734 -- 34.4% of all votes cast
Total seats 271 -- 41.6% of seats available
Liberal Democrats:
Total votes 5,998,378 -- 17.8% of all votes cast
Total seats 20 -- 3.1% of seats available
1992 General Election: in Scotland (72 seats)
Conservatives:
Total votes 752,584 -- 25.6% of all votes cast
Total seats 11 -- 15.3% of seats available
Labour:
Total votes 1,142,865 -- 39.0% of all votes cast
Total seats 50 -- 69.4% of seats available
Liberal Democrats:
Total votes 383,856-- 13.1% of all votes cast
Total seats eight --11.0% of seats available
Scottish National Party:
Total votes 629,552 -- 21.5% of all votes cast
Total seats three -- 4.2% of seats available
- Oct 29
Return to home page