Lord Tyler introduces a Liberal Democrat opposition day debate on replacing first-past-the-post with a more representative voting system

The Government cannot escape from overwhelming evidence that First-Past-the-Post voting should be replaced with a proportional system, says Lib Dem Constitutional Affairs Spokesman, Lord Paul Tyler.

The Liberal Democrats have led a debate in the House of Lords on the Government’s own review of electoral systems in the UK, which finds that proportional systems can bolster turnout, increase the number of women elected, give a wider choice for the elector and maintain a direct relationship with between representative and constituent.

Opening the debate, Lord Tyler called attention to the Review of Voting Systems: the experience of new voting systems in the United Kingdom since 1997.

Lord Tyler began by painting a picture:

“My Lords, I have just been in a country where less than 2 per cent of those entitled to vote seem to decide which party forms a Government. As a result, this tiny elite has huge power, and special financial interests can exert disproportionate influence behind the scenes. Millions of voters, on the other hand, never have any impact at all on the outcome of parliamentary elections. Many of them, indeed, now recognise that and are frustrated by their lack of electoral influence. Naturally, the political parties, which are hardly national any more, concentrate all their campaign cash and effort on targeting this tiny group. As a result, fewer citizens, especially young ones, now bother to vote at any level of governance. The whole legitimacy of their democracy is called into question.

“Members of your Lordships’ House will immediately recognise that I have not been in Russia or Kenya; I have been in the United Kingdom.”

On the discrepancies between number of voters and the number of elected MPs for different parties, Lord Tyler said:

“It is likely that the Conservatives would have to gain 42 per cent of the total popular vote to obtain an overall majority in the other place, while Labour could probably do so on 35 per cent. Very few MPs can now claim to have the support of the majority of those voting in their constituencies. In 2005, only 34 per cent were elected with over half the vote, the lowest proportion in British history. And none, not a single Member of the other place, actually achieved a majority of the total electorate in their constituency. At both the national and local levels, therefore, the legitimacy of the outcome of a general election is bound to be challenged, and I believe it will be at the next election in particular.”

Lord Tyler asked why the Government had sat on the Review of Electoral Systems in the UK for over a month:

“The only possible explanation is that the analysis was so uncomfortable for the Government that they had to spend a month spinning their way from that analysis. The report itself is remarkable for its freedom from partisan bias, but not so the ministerial spin. Mr Michael Wills, the Minister responsible, immediately rubbished reform by reinforcing the case for doing nothing. He then suggested that any attempt to make the Commons more democratic should await the parallel but very slow progress to reform your Lordships’ House. It is as though turkeys at either end of the building are curiously anxious to force those at the other end to face an early Christmas first.”

On the democratic cynicism in the current system, Lord Tyler said:

“Professor Anthony King told some of us on Tuesday that democracy is institutionalised disappointment. To misquote Churchill: lack of real democracy might be even more disappointing. One thing is for sure: we cannot go on like this. Our political system must let the people in, rather than shut them out. At the moment, they are shut out from public debate and we are devoid of public respect as a result. It is corroded by cynicism and we are damaged by our refusal to listen. The present electoral system badly serves our fellow citizens, as the report demonstrates so well. If the political class ignores the public, people can scarcely be blamed for turning their backs on the whole political system.”

Click here to read Lord Tyler’s speech in full

A number of other Liberal Democrat peers also contributed to the debate.

Lord Goodhart set out his views on the representative benefits of coalition governments and the ease of use of STV.
Lord Steel of Aikwood set out his views on the practicalities of representative voting systems.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno explained how first-past-the-post is outdated.
Lord Rennard spoke about past failures to fully introduce representative voting systems and the effects of maintaining first past the post.