Voting Reform
Voting Reform
Voting Reform
Be clear, therefore, that Labour is not trying to protect fairness from those who would destroy it but to perpetuate an unfairness from which Labour itself benefits. Inequality of constituencies is not the only source of bias in the electoral system – but it is certainly one of them. For the past five parliaments it has been biased towards Labour. No amount of red herrings about the danger of reducing the number of MPs, or the inappropriateness of including more than one major change in the same bill, should be permitted to distract from the essential propriety of correcting that bias. To claim this bill should be opposed because it is partisan is not just opportunism, it is an Orwellian inversion of the truth.
The principled stance would be to give the reform bill its second reading. Both of its main pillars – equalising seats and paving the way for the AV referendum – are progressive reforms. If Labour wants to make alliances with rightwing Tories to unpick the bill during the committee stage it can then try to do so, though it would not be right.
This week's decision to oppose the bill on second reading, however, defines Labour both as a party that is a defender of unequal constituencies and one whose commitment to AV reform has quickly become conditional. It raises the question of whether Labour will now, in fact, campaign for a yes vote on AV at all. When Labour looks at this bill it sees Clegg – whom it now hates – not electoral reform, which it should and until a few weeks ago did support. Nearly two centuries after the Chartists, one is bound to ask whether the Labour party is any longer a party of reform at all.
Publish Post Save NowSave as Draft
Voting Reform
Be clear, therefore, that Labour is not trying to protect fairness from those who would destroy it but to perpetuate an unfairness from which Labour itself benefits. Inequality of constituencies is not the only source of bias in the electoral system – but it is certainly one of them. For the past five parliaments it has been biased towards Labour. No amount of red herrings about the danger of reducing the number of MPs, or the inappropriateness of including more than one major change in the same bill, should be permitted to distract from the essential propriety of correcting that bias. To claim this bill should be opposed because it is partisan is not just opportunism, it is an Orwellian inversion of the truth.
The principled stance would be to give the reform bill its second reading. Both of its main pillars – equalising seats and paving the way for the AV referendum – are progressive reforms. If Labour wants to make alliances with rightwing Tories to unpick the bill during the committee stage it can then try to do so, though it would not be right.
This week's decision to oppose the bill on second reading, however, defines Labour both as a party that is a defender of unequal constituencies and one whose commitment to AV reform has quickly become conditional. It raises the question of whether Labour will now, in fact, campaign for a yes vote on AV at all. When Labour looks at this bill it sees Clegg – whom it now hates – not electoral reform, which it should and until a few weeks ago did support. Nearly two centuries after the Chartists, one is bound to ask whether the Labour party is any longer a party of reform at all.
Publish Post Save NowSave as Draft
