Nick Hawkins, MP for Surrey Heath gives an insight into the running of the Mother of Parliaments, Hansard 23 rd February 1998.
| 'A paper has been rushed out, but hon. Members have not had access to it. The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution has been good enough to apologise to hon. Members, so I shall not blame him personally, but this is yet another example of a certain combination that we have witnessed all too often from Government Departments - the combination of arrogance and incompetence. Arrogance leads to paperwork appearing only on the day of the debate to which it is relevant, so that we do not have the opportunity to study it, and incompetence leads to it not being available in the Library when the Minister thinks that it is. Hon. Members are having to rush out of a debate on taxation matters, which are of great interest to the Scottish people. I hope that the Minister will give us an undertaking that we shall never again have to put up with official Government papers coming out on the very afternoon of the debate. It is simply not good enough.' Nick Hawkins, MP for Surrey Heath gives an insight into the running of the Mother of Parliaments, Hansard 23 rd February 1998. | |
The report, however, does not follow this model closely. It only envisages 15-20% of the total number of MPs being returned from a 'top up' regional list. This reduces the element of proportionality that the system can achieve.
If we look at what might have happened if this system had been used at the 1997 General Election then we can assess a little better its likely impact.
On a UK basis and assuming 112 top up members from regional lists, research carried out at the London School of Economics suggests that out of a total of 641 seats Labour would have taken 367 of them. That represents a majority of 93 in comparison with the actual majority Labour achieved of 179. In the proportional terms, the new system would have given Labour 57% of the seats on the basis of 43.2% of the vote. Under first past the post Labour's actual total of 418 seats represents just over 63% of Westminste seats.
The system therefore pushes towards proportionality, but falls somewhat short, at least on the calculation for 1997, of complete parity between votes and seats. The Liberal Democrats would have been a prime beneficiary taking 14% of the seats instead of its actual 7% of the seats.
In Scotland the situation in 1997 would have been a little different if the Alternative Vote plus top up (AV+) had been used. Out of a total of 75 seats, Labour would have 48, the SNP would have 12, with the Liberal Democrats on nine and the Tories on six. However, these totals bear only a moderate move towards proportionality. On the basis of 45.6% of the vote under AV+ Labour would have got 64% of the seats instead of 78% under the first past the post. The SNP would have 16% of seats from 22.1% of the vote under AV+.
The Liberal Democrats would do slightly worse with 12% of the seats under AV+ rather than 13% of seats under First Past the Post. The Tories, of course, in 1997 won no seats at all representing a 0% return for 17.5% of the vote share. Under AV+ they would have 8% of the seats. - Oct 30
Malcolm Dickson is a lecturer in politics at Strathclyde University
Return to home page