Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, the past seven minutes have illustrated to me that people who are obsessed by systems really twist themselves into all sorts of knots because they have a flair for it. My noble friend Lord Rooker certainly has a flair: a flair for hard work, a flair for mastering systems and a flair for coming up with solutions to other people’s systems. Quite frankly, I understood about one-tenth or one-twentieth of what was said, and I cannot fill in a three cross treble line pool or a betting line or whatever it is. I am just not able to do it.

This is what happens when the pro-systems people think that changing the system is the answer to all democracy’s problems. They will twist and turn, go up blind alleys and around corners and all the rest of it. It sounds absolutely brilliant, but despite what my noble friend says, I do not think the average person will understand it.

I have never understood the obsession with PR or AV. The system of first past the post, with whatever imperfections people like my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours can show in it, is tried, trusted and people understand it. Once you get into different systems, you have unforeseen consequences. It is okay for folk to say “We’ll legislate for that the next time” or “We’ll iron out that glitch in the system”, but all they do is twist themselves into further knots. The elections to the Scottish Parliament had unforeseen consequences because we had the Leader of the SNP, Alex Salmond, wangling away, despite the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, being present, I think, is some sort of administrative role. I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong.

Alex Salmond was allowed to put himself at the top of each ballot paper—“Alex Salmond for First Minister”. The situation in Scotland was that the SNP did not win the election. Thanks to the daft list system, it finished up with one MSP more than the Labour Party, which allowed it to claim under a convoluted and twisted voting system that it had somehow won the right for Mr Salmond to be First Minister. Not satisfied with that, in the 2004 election the Labour Party made the mistake of indulging its Liberal partners in the coalition—what was a genuine coalition in Scotland, not a collaboration like we have at the moment. They were on opposite sides of the Chamber. But the Labour Party allowed itself to be blackmailed, cajoled—call it what you like. Almost within hours of the election result, the Labour Party at Holyrood had caved in and given the Liberals PR for local government.

They have still got that system until it is changed. The candidates are listed in alphabetical order. My understanding of it is tangled because I kept back from Holyrood. I did not particularly want to get involved in MSP matters, but it affected the political party I am committed to. As far as I can recall—again the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, will correct me if I am wrong—the Liberals and others, mainly the SNP, blocked the situation whereby there was a suggestion that the political candidates should be put into alphabetical order within party blocks on the ballot paper. I accept that I am vague on this but I blame the Liberals for everything else so I might as well blame them for this. Folk looked at the paper and said, “There is the Labour candidate and that is the Liberal candidate, so that is who I am going to vote for”, instead of starting at the top alphabetically. The debacle of 2007 was confusing. It was caused by exactly the same proponents of systems rather than democracy and appealing to people.

There was a situation in Rutherglen and Hamilton West where a candidate had been a councillor for four years. She was an outstanding candidate, but she had the unfortunate handicap that her surname began with the letter “O”. She was at the bottom of the ballot paper and she lost her seat. Even the local Liberals felt guilty, which was quite an unusual occurrence. They said to her that they were sorry that she was the one to lose out to the system. What happened was that the Labour Party won two of the three seats in that ward. The Labour candidate who won was a new candidate in the area, a good councillor in his former area, and he is now a good councillor in his current area. But he ended up with almost double the votes that the poor candidate with the surname starting with “O” got, and therefore she lost out to, I think, the SNP candidate, who has also turned out to be a good ward councillor.

What happened there was an unforeseen consequence of this fanatical obsession for tinkering with systems. I shall not persuade anyone who is PR or AV-obsessed, in the same way as they will not convince me, and that is fine, but, given the convoluted nature of my noble friend’s amendment—it is like a Gordian knot—I hope the public will copy Alexander and put a sword through it.

I say to your Lordships’ House—not in a partisan sense but because I genuinely feel it—that these systems do no service to the public: they confuse people; they are for the anoraks. There is nothing wrong with that as long as they do not win but, when the anoraks start to win and the amendments come forward for AV and for trying to make AV work, you end up in a mess. I am totally opposed to my noble friend’s amendment.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has a powerful point, which I shall attempt to put into two sentences. The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, is not right; this is not complicated. It may be complicated for the people who count the votes—a point which I expect the Minister to comment on—but it is not complicated for the voter. It is the same as it would have been under the system put forward by the Government—you just put your preferences.

The noble Lord said that when the votes are counted they will be given a weighting. This goes to the heart of what is wrong with AV. It is completely wrong that the winner of an election may be determined—and he used the quote from Churchill that I used—by the least worthwhile votes of the least worthwhile candidate. They may well be votes for the BNP or for an extremist party, but it is wrong that in some cases the outcome should be determined by the second preferences of the bottom candidate. The system put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for addressing this by weighting the votes according to where they come on the list seems a logical answer. Whether it would be workable, I do not know—no doubt we will be told that it would be too complicated for the counting officer, and that may be so—but it illustrates what is so grotesque and ridiculous about the system that is put forward.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My noble friend puts forward an interesting argument. This is an area on which I did some work in 1989 when we were designing the supplementary vote—we called it “weighting”—and a number of the scenarios that we ran through lengthy computer runs were based on a reduced value being given to subsequent votes under the supplementary vote.

I wish to ask my noble friend whether there might be a slight difference between what we were working on and what he was working on. When he moved the amendment, he referred to the value given to these additional preferences being based on the position on the ballot paper. I presume he meant that if a candidate was in seventh position and yet was the third preference of a particular elector, they would have only one-seventh of the value, whereas under the system on which we worked in 1989 they would have one-third of the value. Can my noble friend clarify the position? If he is working on the basis that there are seven candidates and the candidate at the bottom—candidate Peter—is the third preference of the voter but gets one-seventh of the vote for the third preference, I would not be altogether in favour of it. But if it is simply his intention that the first preferences of every voter should have 100 per cent of the value, that second preferences should have 50 per cent, that third preferences should have 33.3 per cent and fourth preferences 25 per cent, there is great value to the amendment.

I understand that a number of academics have also worked on AV and supplementary vote systems since 1989 to establish whether weighting votes in this way would work. The only problem that arises if one does that is that the minority candidates—in this case, the Liberal Democrats say that they would gain more seats under AV—would not gain as many seats. Although AV tends only marginally to be more proportional—it some circumstances, it can be considerably more so—the effect of weighting votes in the way being suggested will be to reduce the likelihood of outsider candidates winning seats.

My noble friend Lord McAvoy was worried about the anoraks. I apologise to him for being one of those rather pathetic creatures, but electoral systems is a particularly interesting subject. It is the sort of thing you go to bed at night thinking about. I welcome the amendment moved by my noble friend and look forward to the response of the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am not quite sure how to take that. I start by reassuring the House that although I have an interest in electoral systems, I cannot recall ever going to bed thinking about them. I doubt I will even do so tonight.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has put forward a system that would involve some fractional vote. As I read his amendment, at first I thought, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours understood it, that the second preference got half of a vote, the third preference got a third of a vote, the fourth preference a quarter of a vote, and so on. However, in the light of the comments the noble Lord made on 8 December, his intention may instead be that where there is no winner in the first round of counting, and a further round of counting is necessary, the value of any votes reallocated from the eliminated candidates to the candidates who are still in the count would be determined by the position the eliminated candidate had in the first round of counting. In other words, if the eliminated candidate finished fifth, the value of the reallocated vote would be one-fifth and so on. The fact that there is that dubiety in the amendment—when I first read it, I took it to mean the same as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, obviously did—underlines the complexity that arises.

My noble friend Lord Lamont said that the important thing, in terms of simplicity for the voters, is that they are invited to number their candidates 1, 2, 3 and 4 and, if there is complexity, that is for the counters to work out. If we went down the road proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, there would be some complexity when we were being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman and we were trying to explain where the one-quarter vote and the one-fifth vote came into it. However, I also take the point that the noble Lords, Lord McAvoy and Lord Lipsey, and others made, that although at one level voters are invited to order their preferences as 1, 2, 3 and 4 so far as they wish, there nevertheless is a requirement that they have some understanding. They do not need to know all the complex details, but they need to have some understanding of how the system will work.

The purpose of the alternative vote with the system that we are proposing is that it gives equal weight to votes that are still in the count. That meets the clear, simple and practical tests that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, suggested that there should be. The amendment goes against that; it says that some votes should count for less. Where some would say that people “part company”, I would suggest instead that there is a misunderstanding of the position in failing to make the distinction between a preference and a vote, or in somehow suggesting that if, for the sake of argument, the BNP came last and were first to be eliminated, it would be the second preferences of the BNP’s vote that determined the outcome. In fact, it would be the voters’ second preferences that determined it.

It was said that everyone should have two votes and it is not right that, at the second count, someone has only one vote, whereas the person whose second preference has been transferred has two votes. In fact, at the second count, the person who expressed the first preference and who is still leading has a vote again. The vote still counts as a full vote in the second count.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

How can the Minister describe the situation where, let us say, the BNP voters’ second preferences just push the top person over 50 per cent, as “50 per cent of the votes”, when the other preferences of all the other candidates are ignored? That is not 50 per cent in any meaningful sense.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

It is the preferences of the votes allocated to those who are still in the count, as it were. If someone has been eliminated from the count, it is not the party’s vote that is being transferred—it is the voter’s preference that is still being allowed to have a value.