Indeed, but the effects would be much smaller in a first-past-the-post, or first two-past-the-post, system than in an STV system, as I think the hon. Gentleman would accept if he examined the way in which that system works.
Another situation applies in Scotland that is relevant with a three-party system, which we have in most parts of the country, and with a four, five or even six-party system, which we have in some places. Instead of putting forward two candidates to give voters a choice, political parties put forward only one because they know that they will get only one in, and they do not want to risk neither candidate getting in because of some accident in the voting system. As a result, most members' seats are safer under the STV system than under the previous system. Let me give an example. My local government ward in Edinburgh has four councillors—in order of votes, a Labour member, a Scottish National party member, a Liberal Democrat and a Green. If either the Conservatives or Labour were doing particularly well, they might displace the Green and get the last seat, but three out of those four seats will almost certainly be held by Labour, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats for ever, because whatever those members do, they will not lose their seats as long as they keep with their party.
The argument about the STV and giving voters a choice between candidates in the same party might well apply when there are large numbers of candidates for particular seats, or where there are not two, three, four or five-party systems, but I urge the Liberal Democrats and any Labour Members who support the STV system to look at how it works in Scotland. They will find that it does not bring the democratic advantages that they think it does. For that reason, I will not support the proposal for an STV system today. I hope that the proposal for AV goes forward today and that that will be a move towards a fairer and genuinely democratic system—a true system of proportional representation for election to this House.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (Money) (No. 3)
Proceeding contribution from
Mark Lazarowicz
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 9 February 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
505 c844-5 Session
2009-10Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 00:44:37 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_624081
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_624081
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_624081