Beware of self-fulfilling prophecies – that’s something that British political campaigners need to ponder this week after the heavy defeat of the campaign for the introduction of a reformed voting system for the House of Commons. (The weekend referendum saw the “No” campaign win about 69% of the vote.)
With understandable anger, some “yes” campaigners are going around saying “this is the end of political reform for a generation”.
Yet this is demonstrably untrue, because this month the government is expected to announce plans to reform the House of Lords (currently a mix of appointed and hereditary peers). Ideally this would involve a complete election of the house by proportional representation – certainly it will include at least some of this, if the government is to avoid a huge outcry.)
For the fact is that everyone knows that the existing first past the post (FPTP) electoral system is not what you’d introduce were you to start designing the British electoral system today. That’s not what’s been introduced for new parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; it’s a system that not one other country in Europe uses.
It worked well enough when the electorate was basically choosing between two parties, as it did for much of the 20th century, but as politics has increasingly diversified, more than 40% of voters voting for parties other than the “big Three” in the European Parliament elections in 2009, it is clearly no longer fit for purpose. Voters are forced to vote tactically in Westminster election – typically that means abandoning a candidate they prefer for one they can live with, in the hope of beating on they really dislike.
The proposed Alternative Vote system on which the UK was voting last weekend was a far from ideal replacement – an improvement, but a small one, and I think it is now true to say that it is dead in the water and won’t be revived.