I was delighted when Nick Clegg announced that the refereundum on Alternative Votes would be held 11 May next year and even the exact wording.
To make this happen an act is before parliament. It also includes reducing the number of MP’s by 50 ensuring a work equitable size in terms of voters in each parliamentary constituency. This should’nt affect Southwark as we now have pretty average constituencies.
I’m amazed Labour are planning to vote against this. Clearly not a decision based on principle. AV will result in fewer safe seats. Their was a broad correlation between how safe a seat was and the degree of expenses scandal. AV would see all MP’s take more interest in their voters which can only be a good thing.
Under AV every MP would have 50% of the voters expressing a preference for them. This should give more power to MP’s and take away from central control. An MP could legitimately express stronger dissent on issues that matter to their constituents. This should make a stronger connection locally or face electoral defeat at the next election.
Reducing the number of seats. I’ve always thought it rather bizarre that not enough space for all MP’s to sit at the same time in the houses of parliament. In the past before telephones, internet, TV, radio, and ubiquitous cars, I could imagine that physically bigger constituencies were a problem and therefore they were kept smaller. But in this day and age their is no excuse for a Welsh or Scottish voter to have more say in how the country is run than a voter in East Dulwich. Clearly the odd exception when islands involved!
The other very attractive merits of AV for me is that voters can vote more clearly how they want. So we should see much less need to vote tactically.
Overall these changes should be really good for democracy.
You want to reduce the number of MPs so they can all sit down? Seriously? That’s your argument?
Reducing the number by 10% probably isn’t drastic enough to do that – the Commons chamber is pretty small. So why not by 20%? 30%? 50%? And the reduction won’t only hit Scotland or Wales either so your West Lothian-esque question isn’t relevent either.
The Government is trying to gerrymander a Tory majority (sorry to have to break it to you that way). I believe Labour is opposing the Bill because the Government won’t do anything to account for the millions who aren’t on the electoral register and because they are doing away with local inquiries (so much for localism and the ‘new’ politics).
As for AV I am genuinely undecided. I look forward to the debate.
My point about places to sit was the absurdity of so many MP’s.
Balancing the number of voters in seats may help a party but gerry mandering in the first place created the current situation. How can it be gerry mandering to have the same number of voters in each constituency.
Failing to be on the electoral roll is a real problem. I’ve questioned returning officers about this. In Southwark we’re much better than we were at getting people on the electoral roll but much more to be done.
The current situation balances the number of constituents with other factors such as geography. It wasn’t designed in order to benefit one party over another as the current proposal is.
If having 650 members is ‘absurd’ and having 600 is apparently not, why not reduce it to 500? Would that be even less ‘absurd’? Or what about 100? 20? Come on, justify the 10% reduction or tell me what your proposed number is and why. This point is seperate to any discussion about AV, of course.
You’re right to question what is the right number?
I don’t have an answer to that. But geography is much less important these days as most case work arrives by email and phone. Face to face surgeries still helpful for some. So an area that can reasonably be supported by face to face surgeries, email and phone would seem reasonable for constituency size and for an MP to be able to keep in touch with residents. To keep a strong local connection a requirement to live within some reasonable distance of the constituency.
My personal view would be to fewer MPs than the seats available. Our representatives must at least be able to be present if they’re to represent us.
600 MP’s would mean roughly 80,000 voters and 105,000 residents per constituency. The size of constituencies we have in Southwark seem to work. Considering the social deptrivation if our MPs are able to service casework then others should be able to cope with these numbers even if spread much further about.