My Letter to Michael Wills MP, Minister Of State

Dear Mr Wills,

I understand that you would welcome comments about the review of UK voting systems that your department has recently carried out. Here is my contribution to the debate.

It seems to me that the two main arguments used to defend the present system for electing MPs to Westminster are;

1.The need to maintain a strong ‘constituency link’ and
2.The need to avoid ‘weak’ and unstable coalition government.

This idea that there is a strong constituency link under the...

present system is fatuous. Most constituents know little or nothing about their MP, not even their name. Indeed, most of the electorate have never voted for their MP and never will. For example, George Galloway was elected by just 18% of his constituents and the average for an MP is less than 35% (less if you count the high number of eligible electors not registered). The majority of voters support candidates other than their MP, but because their vote is split, it is completely ineffective under this current system.

Most constituent’s primary concern is to vote for the party they perceive will provide a government that best shares their ideology and/or policy ideas. Even the likeability of the party leaders usually ranks much higher in importance for voters than information about any local candidate.

The most hard working and well liked MP, elected over many decades, will at most only accumulate a ‘personal following’ of a few thousand (less than 5% of constituents). Under this system this would have no effect on who is elected in over 85% of constituencies (and of the rest, the periodic change in the constituency boundaries is usually much more likely to affect the result). Effectively a ‘closed party list’ is in place, but crucially without the benefits brought by proportionality.

This explains why most people who become a ‘local’ MP have usually trawled the UK for available safe seats and have never set foot near said constituency until they tried to become an MP there. Yes, a few dozen people a year in each constituency (at most), might successfully use their MP to help sort their housing, taxation, benefit or immigration problems, but is this really the best way to offer this service (especially when an MP might already be spending his time running a government department) and does this justify having such an unaccountable and unfair way of selecting our members of parliament and government?

Finally, is it a sign of ‘weak’ governments when countries have enjoyed higher post-war economic growth, less inequality, better environmental protection, better quality public services and higher political engagement than the UK? Is it a sign of unstable governments when countries have had fewer post-war leaders and general elections than the UK? Nearly every country that has had a proportional electoral system continuously since the war has enjoyed all these things.

In times of crisis, the UK has turned to coalition government for strength and stability. Was the wartime National Coalition government ‘weak’? (Labour laid the foundations for the welfare state and Churchill led the war effort). Some might reasonably argue it was the best government we have ever had.

From Jeremy Corbyn to Alan Milburn, this government is formed from a wide coalition of views and factions. Except, unlike under a proportional system, parliament is less represented by women, ethnic minorities and working classes and more by ex public school boys, voters are denied a vote on which wing of the coalition government they prefer and have to put up with a government with a parliamentary majority on minority support.

How can anyone defend a system that gives 55% of seats in parliament to a party with only 35% of the vote and then still call themselves a democrat? Isn’t it time we let the people decide and give us that referendum on electoral reform that Labour promised?

Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to a reply.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Harding