British Members of the European Parliament are in a unique position. As fellow MEPs from other member states are elected by different forms of proportional representation, UK MEPs have the chance to see at first hand how different Systems operate, how democratic they are and whether they lead to effective government.
Their experiences have motivated a group of Labour MEPs to set out some of the reasons why Labour should resist calls to support PR.
There are three major types of voting systems put forward by electoral reformers: STV, ATV and AMS. Each has major defects.
Moreover in multi-member constituencies candidates of the same Party are forced into the unhappy position of competing with each other for whatever number of seats their Party secures.
We should remember that whilst ATV may seem attractive in some Labour strongholds, there will be many constituencies where the combined anti-Labour vote will be to Labour’s disadvantage.
Under AMS in west Germany 50% of the 497 Bundestag seats are elected by first past the post. The remainder are elected under PR from Party lists.
In Britain (excluding Northern Ireland), 317 of the 633 seats in the House of Commons would be elected by first past the post; the other 316 from Party lists.
The present constituencies would be enlarged from around 55,000 electors to 110,000.
AMS would lead to the power to select being shifted away from local parties to the Party hierarchy at either Regional or National level. It would also result in sitting MPs competing against each other to win selection for the greatly shrunken number of seats.
And how can one democratically justify the situation in West Germany, where the Free Democrats, despite never having more than 10% of the national vote, have shared in Government for more than 20 years and in effect determine which Major Party is actually in Power.
The PR lobby has been guilty of many misleading statements.
Here we set the record straight.
<< people turn out in greater numbers when an election is by PR >>
|
State
|
Last election
|
Penultimate election
|
Average
|
|
W. GERMANY
|
84.3% (Jan ’87)
|
89.1% (Mar ’83)
|
86.70%
|
|
DENMARK
|
85.7% (May ’88)
|
86.8% (Sep ’87)
|
86.25%
|
|
HOLLAND
|
80.1% (Sep ’89)
|
85.7% (May ’86)
|
82.9%
|
|
UK
|
75.4% (Jun ’87)
|
72.7% (Jun ’83)
|
74.05%
|
|
FRANCE
|
69.9% (Jun ’88)
|
78.1% (Mar ’86)
|
74.02%
|
|
ElRE
|
73.3% (Feb ’87)
|
72.9% (Nov ’82)
|
73.08%
|
|
PORTUGAL
|
71.6% (Jun ’87)
|
72.3% (Oct ’85)
|
71.91%
|
|
SPAIN
|
69.2% (Oct ’89)
|
70.8% (Jun ’86)
|
69.99%
|
The UK is lying fourth in the EEC league table of election turnouts. Voting is compulsory in BELGIUM, ITALY, LUXEMBOURG and GREECE.
And the table below shows another worrying result of PR, the large number of spoiled ballot papers. This may reflect either an expression of dissatisfaction by the voters with the choices available or a misunderstanding of how the system works.
|
ITALY
|
2,675,292
|
6.49%
|
|
FRANCE
|
699,052
|
3.33%
|
|
SPAIN
|
283.629
|
1.38%
|
|
W GERMANY
|
482,481
|
1.26%
|
|
UK
|
22,511
|
0.07%
|
One only has to study the rise of the Labour Party in the early decades of this century to realise that it is possible for a new Party, provided that it is deeply rooted in the society from which it emerges, to break through and achieve success under the present electoral system.
Small parties only suffer if they have an even spread of electoral support across the country. Thus regionally based Parties have generally secured seats roughly in proportion to their vote. Even the SLD, despite their enthusiasm for PR, have shown that concentrated work in a constituency can bring success: they have won and held on to Yeovil and David Alton’s Liverpool seat for this reason.
All PR systems exaggerate the influence of small parties out of all proportion to their level of support amongst the electorate. We are all familiar with the present chaos in Israel. Another illustration was provided in 1982 in West Germany when the Free Democrats toppled the Social Democrat Government by switching sides and going into coalition with the Christian Democrats - without consulting the electorate.
Under PR, groups feeling their views are being ignored often break away from the major parties to form or re-group in new parties. Some because they no longer wish to compromise their views; others recognising that, although a minority, they could even share power in government. The Labour Party, indeed no major political party, can afford to ignore that possibility.
By the same token fascist and racist parties would also be favoured under PR and would gain a platform for their odious views. It is damnable that PR supporters always conveniently omit the names of fascist and racist parties from their hypothetical ballot papers in an attempt to hide this consequence.
Thresholds have not kept out the far right in France and West Germany. It is foolish to pretend they would keep out racists in the UK.
There is no hard evidence to support this. In countries where women’s representation has increased it is because of a political decision by a political party.
In west Germany the Greens decided that 50% of their elected seats would be allocated to women. The SPD decided that they would increase women’s representation by stages, first to 20% then 30% and finally 40% of the total seats won.
There is nothing to stop the Labour Party taking a political decision to introduce women only shortlists for 50% of those seats where the Party had a majority of 10,000 or more. That way women’s representation in the House of Commons would increase overnight.
Some people have argued that whilst first past the post voting should be retained for the House of Commons as a General Election is primarily about electing a Government - we could adopt PR for elections to the European Parliament, local Councils and Regional Assemblies.
BUT once PR was accepted for any major elections in mainland Britain the pressure to extend it to all elections would become irresistible.
Furthermore once we go down the PR road, there is no going back. The smaller parties, of which there would be many, won’t vote to return to the First Past the Post system.
REMEMBER under most PR systems the hard won accountability of elected MPs to their local constituents and their local parties would be broken. Under list systems the only accountability MPs have is to the leadership of their Party who determine the all important issue of their position on the list for the next election.
This is apparent in the European Parliament where members from the UK are concerned with their constituencies, the problems there, the effect of these problems on their electors. They take up and quote individual cases which results in a much higher quality of debate from British MEPs.
Other members are more concerned with the grand policies espoused by their parties centrally, because their parties determine their position on the list. This also shows in debate and the emphasis of their work.
The central list system as used by France and Greece not only gives more power and control to political parties at the expense of the elector, it can also be used corruptly. It is possible, and has indeed happened, that for the election a list of well known ‘’personalities” is put forward by a political party to maximise their vote. After their election, these personalities are then changed for lesser known politicians.
As far as the individual elector is concerned, the UK system is the most directly democratic, in that UK MEPs are more representative of their electors.
Moreover recent efforts in the Labour Party to devolve the selection of candidates to the whole party membership would be undermined by any sort of list system. Different PR systems would either totally prevent such devolution or require Party members to make a choice of several candidates for a multi member constituency from a list of potential candidates whom many would neither know or have the chance to hear or question.
Most people joined the Party to achieve a majority elected Labour Government with real power. All existing evidence suggests that under PR, Labour would be unlikely to have an overall majority in the Commons, the new second chamber or the regional assemblies - including the Scottish Assembly. That means that the Party’s programme, arrived at after a long democratic process, would be negotiated away in back room deals in an attempt to appeal to potential coalition partners.
Under the present electoral system it is possible for a radical left Labour Government to be elected to help bring about a fundamental change in society.
Under PR the major party of government is one that discards most of its manifesto to attract the support of other parties. Labour voters would then have a government which is Labour in name only. Surely that is not what the struggles of Labour activists are about - to create a party devoid of any socialist commitment.
The next Labour government will inherit a ruined economy. There will be a need for investment in training, in research and development, in house building, etc., to remove the scars of the past decade.
No matter how much Labour dampens aspirations, after the next election Labour voters will expect an improvement in their economic circumstances.
The disillusionment if this does not happen could come about in months not in years.
When this has happened in the past the Labour Left has remained loyal: the broad church has stayed together. Not least because there has been nowhere else to go which would provide an electable base. The defection of the right wing members to form the SDP and their failure as a National party is an example of this. But next time round, a Labour government may have conceded proportional representation as the price of buying votes or keeping it in power.
And because smaller parties enjoy an exaggerated influence under PR it may be in the interests of clearly defined groups in the party to organise as separate parties rather than be ignored within the Labour Party.
Party members and trade unionists have to ask if electoral reform does not provide the Party with the means to implement its manifesto, and if it could lead to the break up of the Party, what purpose does it serve for Labour.
Those who claim this to be a narrow point of view should tell us when it was that the SLD and the Nationalists accommodated the Labour Party.
The ruling class has been adept at defending its own position throughout history. We should not be ashamed to defend the interests of the people we represent.
Roger Barton Alex Falconer Mike McGowan Eddy Newman Brian Simpson Ken Stewart Janey Buchan Michael Hindley David Morris Christine Oddy Alex Smith Gary Titley Mike Elliott Alf Lomas Stan Newens Barry Seal LIew Smith