Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (Money) (No. 3)

I rise to oppose this money resolution on several grounds. First, it meets no perceived need. It has no justification, and it would also involve a wanton waste of public money. It is an election gimmick thought up by a discredited Prime Minister hoping to extend his days in office by some shady deal with the Liberal Democrats—and he should remember that although he can hire a Liberal Democrat, he cannot rely upon him. In addressing the money resolution, the House should consider the following facts. The Prime Minister has now been in office, either as Prime Minister or Chancellor, for 12 years, and at no time has he shown the slightest interest in electoral reform. Indeed, the Ashdown diaries, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) mentioned a few weeks ago, make it absolutely plain that the Prime Minister opposed the deal on electoral reform when Tony Blair and Lord Ashdown discussed that, so what we are dealing with here is an act of pure political cynicism. The Prime Minister refused to fund a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, although he had promised that, but he now wants us to fund a referendum on a change that he has always opposed. This money resolution also illustrates the profligacy of the Prime Minister. He wants us to spend public money on something we do not want, even though that money is not readily available, thus ratcheting up debt and taxation, and his sole motive is personal ambition cloaked in the language of moral purpose. This House has heard too much about the moral compass to be readily deceived. We should also consider the intellectual dishonesty involved. We are being asked to spend public money on the alternative vote, but there are many other ways of electing a Parliament, of course. Some of them appear on the amendment paper. The Liberal Democrats favour the single transferable vote, as spelled out in amendment (b) to new clause 88. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) favours the ““two-round runoff system”” in amendment (j) to that new clause, while the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) refers to the top-up system in amendments (m) and (p). In common, I suspect, with most Conservative Members, I prefer first past the post, but the Prime Minister, without proper consultation—indeed, without any consultation at all—wants to spend public money to promote not a broad debate on the merits of electoral reform, but a narrow proposal, which in the dark watches of the night, if not the dark watches of his soul, he thinks might favour his electoral prospects.