Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Lamont of Lerwick and Lord Roberts of Llandudno
Monday 20th December 2010

(13 years, 11 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno Portrait Lord Roberts of Llandudno
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I find it very strange that the party that seems to be supporting first past the post is the one that is refusing first past the post in a referendum. If you win by one in a constituency at the moment, you have won. However, if you win by one without a threshold, you have lost. I really cannot make much sense out of that argument.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick Portrait Lord Lamont of Lerwick
- Hansard - -

What about the party that says that everyone should have 50 per cent of the vote and is now advocating that that should not apply in a referendum?

Lord Roberts of Llandudno Portrait Lord Roberts of Llandudno
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

That is not, of course, what we say. It is the argument of a coalition of dinosaurs who say that in the old days you could have just two parties in a constituency. As I have argued before, one is bound to get 50 per cent. If you have 6.3 parties, which was the average in last May’s election, it does not work in the same way. Nearly every member will be elected on a minority vote. We must accept that.

The first referendum I remember was on the Sunday opening of pubs in Wales. No one mentioned a threshold—no one was going to risk doing that—so it was carried in some counties and not in others. There was no threshold. Then we came to the European Union and whether we stayed in or stayed out. There was no talk of a threshold there. The only talk of a threshold was in the first referendum on devolution. Then you had a threshold, and both Scotland and Wales failed to reach it. Then came the next referendum on devolution, and there was no threshold. I am told that when Northern Ireland had its Good Friday referendum, there was no threshold.

Why are we making this exception now? We are doing so purely to try to destroy this AV proposal, and nothing else. I can see the argument going thus—let us delay the Bill and talk at length so we miss that May deadline. That would mean that the turnout would be down, perhaps in October, and it would be said that not enough people voted this time; perhaps only 20 per cent voted.