Energy Security
Debate between Richard Foord and Mike Martin(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Last week in the Gracious Speech, the Government pledged to introduce a new Representation of the People Bill. Constitutional issues such as the electoral system can seem far removed from people’s daily lives, but that could not be further from the truth. With a better electoral system, politicians and parties will be more focused on the issues that really matter to voters. Electoral reform is a necessary step to ensure a fairer society with better schools, better hospitals, safer communities, clean air and clean water.
The Representation of the People Bill has the potential to be the latest chapter in the evolution of our democracy. Ours is a proud history of a franchise that has expanded across the generations, extending the vote to an ever broader base of people. From the Great Reform Act 1832 to the Representation of the People Act 1918, which granted the right of voting to women, to the Representation of the People Act 1969, which made the UK the first democracy to give votes to everyone aged 18 and above, this is a story of progress and we should continue it.
I welcome that the Government are continuing this trend with votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. When I trained 16 and 17-year-old recruits in the regular Army, some of them were bound months later to serve in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan, which they did. If 16-year-olds can join our armed forces and pay tax, they deserve a voice in how both of those are used. The new Representation of the People Bill has the potential to occupy a place in the pantheon of progressive extensions to the franchise.
By contrast, our current system of first past the post enables parties to turn a small plurality of votes into a massive majority of seats, and 2024 showed that at its worst. The general election of ’24 was the most disproportionate in modern British history. Turnout was the second lowest since records began in 1885; less than 60% of the electorate cast a vote. They were unconvinced and uninspired by both Labour and the Conservatives. Labour won one third of the vote, Labour won two thirds of the seats and Labour won three thirds of the levers of power. The 2024 general election result was a direct consequence of the first-past-the-post voting system. This winner-takes-all approach threatens to reward populists who thrive in divisive and adversarial politics.
I speak not in relation to our party political self-interest here in the Liberal Democrats. We were delivered a result that was proportionate to the votes cast. Yet I look around me at the MPs from Reform UK or from the Green party; if the 2024 general election had been conducted under the additional member system of proportional representation, Reform UK would now have 94 MPs sitting on these Benches and the Green party would have 42. Instead, they have five and four respectively. The disparity between votes cast and seats won adds significantly to the disillusion that many of us will have heard on the streets of the UK when we were out there campaigning in the local elections earlier this month.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Is not the biggest problem with first past the post that often people are voting against rather than for someone? That poisons our democracy, because everyone ends up with someone who they do not want.
Richard Foord
My hon. Friend is spot on. I accept that former Labour voters vote for me to keep out the Tories and Reform, and former Conservative voters vote for me to keep out Labour and the Green party. That is not the system that we want. We want a system where people can vote positively for change, with hope. It is little wonder that the only other European country besides the UK that elects its Parliament in this way is Belarus. If first past the post continues, we could see just 30% of votes bringing in a Government with extremist ideas. I want to see a proportionate, not a disproportionate, number of MPs for Reform UK and the Green party.
I do not agree with those parties on universal access, on defence or on immigration. On universal access, Reform UK talks about tax breaks for people who opt out of the NHS, while the Green party talks about bringing in a basic income for everybody, with no conditions. One wants to strip us of universal healthcare; the other wants to have taxpayers paying for universal income. On defence, we see Reform UK apologising for Putin’s aggression against Ukraine and the Green party pledging to dismantle the UK’s nuclear weapons; one is lowering the Ukrainian flag over town halls that it controls while the other would hoist a white flag over defence establishments in this country. On immigration, whether it is the Green party threatening to end proper controls on—
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Richard Foord and Mike Martin(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)