John Hayward Posted: 11 May 2010
Keywords: Finance & the Economy, Government & Foreign Affairs,
Tearfund's Theological Advisor Dewi Hughes wrote in Votewise Now!, 'Politicians refer to 'this nation', and Christians pray for 'our nation', both meaning Britain - despite the fact that many Scottish, Irish, Welsh and English people consider these countries their respective nations. Politicians often appeal to 'Britishness' as a value, and our national identity is a theme that provokes strong reactions.'
Those who argue in favour of 'proportional representation' want a reformed voting system that gives smaller parties a parliamentary delegation that more closely reflects their share of the popular vote. However, any attempt by politicians to establish a fairer voting system will also need to address some fundamental inequalities if whatever coalition or minority government finally emerges from the frenetic discussions of the last few days is not to exacerbate regional tensions. For instance, consider the following comparison of last week's election results summarised by nation together with their average constituency sizes and dependency on government funding:
| UK | England | Scotland | Wales | N.Ireland | |
| Share of Vote | |||||
| Conservative | 36.3% | 39.8% | 16.7% | 26.1% | 0.0% |
| Labour | 29.2% | 28.3% | 42.0% | 36.2% | 0.0% |
| Liberal Democrat | 23.2% | 24.4% | 18.9% | 20.1% | 0.0% |
| Other | 11.3% | 7.5% | 22.4% | 17.5% | 100% |
| Number of Seats | |||||
| Conservative | 306 | 297 | 1 | 8 | 0 |
| Labour | 258 | 191 | 41 | 26 | 0 |
| Liberal Democrat | 57 | 43 | 11 | 3 | 0 |
| Other | 28 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 18 |
| Majority | None | Con:62 | Lab:23 | Lab:12 | None |
| Average constituency size | 68,180 | 69,404 | 67,720 | 55,642 | 61,315 |
| Public spending as a share of GDP 2009-10 (CEBR) | 48.1% | 46.2% | 54.5% | 68.8% | 71.3% |
It is easy to see why some voters in England might feel the smaller nations are having a disproportionate influence on how the United Kingdom is governed or fear that they will bear the brunt of the inevitable cuts that all parties agree must come if the budget deficit is to brought under control.
Will any more proportionate form of representation – including at the very least more equal constituency sizes – also mean a more proportionate redistribution of national expenditure? If not, the so-called West Lothian question (concerning why Scottish MPs get to vote on legislation that affects only England while English MPs do not vote on similar legislation that has been devolved to the Scottish Assembly) will undoubtedly sound ever louder in the coming years. Yet, fairness is not the only relevant biblical principle. Social justice and compassion also shape how we define what is fair and place demands on how policy is formulated (and money is spent).
Clearly there is more to applying the biblical principle of fairness than simply reassessing how we count people's votes.
What you say in the last sentence is true. However, there is a growing sense of the unfairness of the present system. The option which best balances the need for fairness and the retention of a local link is STV.
Jeremy Ive 11 May 2010
A letter that The Times published from me almost exactly five years ago has continuing interest in the light of developments today:
9th May 2005
Cabinet reform
Sir, It is required of newly democratic countries such as Iraq that their governments are representative of the population at large. Our present first-past-the-post system is generally accepted as having more merits and fewer demerits than any alternative, and yet traditional British Cabinet government is distorted by the landslide victories of recent years.
Without changing the voting system, one way of protecting ourselves from the presidential temptations that large majorities grant to winning parties would be to require the Cabinet to be a cross-party body, with each party allocated posts in proportion to its national share of the vote.
As in Iraq, this may result in some days or weeks of post-electoral negotiation while all parties come to agreement on the constitution of the new Cabinet, but such a body would ensure genuine debate between the parties at all levels of governance.
John Hayward 11 May 2010
I don't think that it will be best to have the Cabinet elected. Getting the right people for the right posts has to be exercised at teh discretion of the party leader or party leaders.
Jeremy Ive 12 May 2010
Nor will it help to have the Upper House elected by PR -- that will simply laeve it under the control of the party machines. It is best that the Upper House be indirectly elected on a rolling basis so that continuity is preserved.
Jeremy Ive 12 May 2010
If politics is merely the Manichean struggle of the forces of light agains the the forces of darkness, FPTP is admirably suited. Politics is then about total victory or heroic, if futile, defeat. However, if one's political opponent has the possibility, just the possibility, of some valid political contribution -- then STV is the right system
Jeremy Ive 12 May 2010
Having lived and worked based in the UK for over four years, I suggest due consideration is given to some type of voting reform. In Australia where I now live in retirement, we have compulsory voting for all citizens over 18 years-of-age. If that seems like a reduction of freedom, it is more than balanced by either proportional representation in our national Upper House (the Senate - similar as a house of review but different because of the lack of hereditary/positional qualifications to membership in the House of Lords). A preferential system is used for our Lower House (House of Representatives similar to the Commons in UK) rather than 'first past the post'. If I vote for a representative of minor party, I can indicate by my preferences who would be my first, second and third choice. In that way the wishes of the whole population can be known, valued and reflected in the numbers of parliamentarians of each party who represent the population.
Ian Southwell 29 May 2010