Following the 2010 election there's sudden talk of collaboration. An obvious sticking point is that while the Conservatives want to stick to first past the post, Liberals are desperate for PR.This proposal seeks to triangulate the two positions with workable parliamentary reform.
Let’s first take a quick look at the results – which make it clear why the Liberals want PR and the other two main parties don’t.
33,350 Labour votes were cast for each elected MP.
34,989 Conservative votes cast for each elected MP.
119,788 Liberal votes cast for each elected MP.
This proposal recommends:
• a slimmed down House of Commons (with 400-500 seats). MPs elected via the current first past the post constituency system
• an elected House of Lords voted by PR (with half the number of seats)
• laws would require a combined majority across the Lords and Commons to be passed.
• peerages would continue, but as honorary titles only
Benefits
• Voters retain constituency MPs but the will of the nation is more accurately reflected in parliament
• The parliamentary process would be re-invigorated, with both the upper and lower chambers playing a central role
• Cost savings of 15% or more
• The system can be re-calibrated by changing the total, and relative, numbers of seats in both the reformed Lords and Commons. This enables political compromise.
Voting
The public continue to vote as now, but for every 100,000-250,000 votes cast for candidates associated with a specific party, that party gains a single PR seat in the reformed Lords. When voting on legislation both Houses are treated as a single entity, with a Lords vote counting the same as a Commons vote. The totals for each House are simply added together to determine the overall majority.
Is it fair?
Well, it’s fairer than the current system where it takes 3.4 Liberal votes to match a single Labour or Conservative vote in terms of getting representation in parliament.
Odd though it sounds, a proportionally-represented Lords with half the number of seats as the Commons may be no more disadvantageous to the Liberals than one with an equal number of seats.
Note: the calculation below is very rough and potentially flawed. It assumes constituency sizes, boundaries and 'votes needed' as per the 2010 election. The PR element assumes 200,000 and then 100,000 votes per seat.
Assuming 480 seats in House of Commons and 240 in the Lords:
Libs - 440,000 votes needed per 3 seats (Lord + two MPs). Lab/Con require 268,000. For Libs, 65% more votes needed per member
Assuming 480 seats in House of Commons and 480 in the Lords:
Libs need 220,000 votes per pair of seats (Lord + one MP) vs. Lab/Con 134,000. For Libs, 64% more votes needed per member.
So in both examples above, Liberals need to garner 5 votes to get the same representation generated by just 3 Conservative or Labour votes. But it beats the current 7 to 2 ratio.
Will a reduction of MPs hurt democracy?
Constituency size averages around 74,000 voters now. Would it really hobble democracy to bring it up to 100,000? One suspects not. While an MP represents about 100,000 UK inhabitants (including children), a US congressman represents closer to 700,000. It’s not just the sheer quantity of constituency MPs that brings democracy – it is the overall flexibility of the system to listen to people and take on board their opinions.
Why 400-500 MPs?
Currently, if you add the numbers of Lords seats (733) with Westminster MPs (650), Scottish reps (129) and Welsh reps (60), you get a total of 1572 representatives.
The aim above is to cut total representation, and cost, by approx 25%. This suggests a figure of around 815 UK and Nation reps – with constituencies of 100,000 voters for MPs. (Assumption: current cost of a Lord at a third that of an MP).
This suggests 400 English MPs and 80 from NI, Scotland and Wales, plus 240 in the reformed Lords. The latter would require 200,000 voters per seat (assuming 240 seats in the Lords).
There are currently 533 constituencies in England, 59 in Scotland, 40 in Wales and 18 in Northern Ireland.
Background
Oliver Cromwell reckoned the House of Lords was an absurd waste of space and got rid of it in 1649. The Lords made a comeback with the monarchy, but finally lost the vestiges of real power in 1911. A temporary solution for the upper chamber was rushed through at the time and - against all odds – this is with us a hundred years later.
Given that the Lords have lost their power as the highest Court in the land and can no longer block legislation, what it is that they do? The ability to delay laws is of little significance.
Their supporters will tell you that the Lords can suggest useful amendments as laws wend their way through parliament. That may be, but there are more practical ways of enabling such amendments… without the need for an entire House of Parliament dedicating itself to dabbing the occasional spot of icing on to the legislative cake.
In short, the current House of Lords is thoroughly dispensable. The only reason it survived is because it was a useful bit of patronage for Prime Ministers, who could give their chums a classy gift. The other reason of course was that it was a real headache working out what to replacing them with.
Two chambers worked in the past, when the Lords actually held real power. Until George III it was an exclusive affair, with only 50 members rather than the bloated 700+ now. This set-up then was once similar to the American system where the exclusive Senate (100 strong) works alongside a larger Congress (441 strong). Both chambers wield power, not just one.
