It is all the films that have a bad ending. Most right hon. and hon. Members will agree—some publicly and others privately—that as things stand, this is a deeply unsatisfactory piece of legislation. It has its genesis in the party political horse-trading that characterised the coalition talks and which is all too evident. I remind the House and those in the other place of what this Bill means unless the other place overturns some of the clauses passed here: a referendum on AV on 5 May 2011, which was not in the manifesto of either of the coalition parties, so there is no mandate for it; a reduction of elected Members in this House from 650 to 600, which was not in the manifesto of either coalition party, so there is no mandate for it; the abolition of public inquiries for boundary commission proposals, which was in neither of the coalition parties' manifestos, so there is no mandate for it; holding the next general election with new boundaries based on purely mathematical formulae, save for two exceptions, of 600 seats, which again was in neither of the coalition parties' manifestos, so there is no mandate for it.
We will soon have before us a new Bill that will set in stone the date of the next general election—5 May 2015. Once again, that was in neither of the coalition parties' manifestos and there is no mandate for it. The Prime Minister and his chum, the Deputy Prime Minister, will sell these reforms in public as democratising measures that herald the dawn of a new politics. Behind closed doors, however, they offer a different rationale, as was revealed by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field). On the day of Second Reading—the last time the Deputy Prime Minister came to this Chamber for this Bill—the hon. Gentleman said that"““the current proposals for AV and the reduction in number of parliamentary constituencies are being promoted by party managers as an expedient way to prevent our principal political opponents from recapturing office.””——[Official Report, 6 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 47.]"
I know that the Whips have kept the hon. Gentleman out of the Chamber this evening.
This Bill is the product of a straightforward political bargain. In exchange for a referendum on the alternative vote, which the Conservatives opposed, the Liberal Democrats signed up to a review of constituency boundaries that the Conservatives favoured. As such, it has come to be regarded by the leadership as an unalterable document that must be accepted totally and unquestioningly.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Sadiq Khan
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 2 November 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
517 c865-6 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 13:35:07 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_675948
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_675948
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_675948