David Davis: Let's vote for clarity over constitutional change

The people might respect us more if we admitted the real reasons for what we are doing. Of course, party advantage is implicit in what we are talking about – with an electoral system, it would be surprising if it were not – and I am sure that the proposal has come about, in part, as a result of the political grievances of each component of the coalition Government.

On the part of the Conservative Party, the grievance is that it takes a 10-point lead over Labour to get a majority in the House of Commons. That seems a perfectly legitimate grievance.

The Liberal Democrat party has a grievance that, as the long-term

third party in this country, it does not get a share of power very often. Now is an exception.

So, there are understandable grievances, and there is nothing wrong in our political system with parties doing things that are to their advantage and in their own interest, but we must do such things with open eyes, and in a way that subordinates party interest to public interest, and that is where I have a problem with the Bill.

We must recognise that we are proposing to change the first-past-the-post system that has worked extremely well for well over a century. Arguably, it has worked better in this country for our democracy than in any other country and for any other democracy in the world. We have avoided extremism and, in general, had good outcomes throughout that time.

We are going to replace that with the Alternative Vote. The Deputy Prime Minister quite rightly said that it was very difficult to predict the exact outcome of an alternative vote.

We do not have to do our own calculations, however. The Blair

Government asked Lord Jenkins (a founder of the SDP) to chair a

commission on proportional representation, and one thing that he considered was the Alternative Vote. Interestingly, Roy Jenkins rejected it, and one of his grounds was that it was too anti-Conservative – Lord Jenkins, let alone anybody else, said that.

More importantly, he rejected it also on the ground that it was not just not more proportional than first past the post; in many cases it was actually less proportional – more disproportional – than our current system.

In that report, the most telling thing of all was a minority report by Lord Alexander, one of the great legal brains of his day, who took a case study of an alternative vote in a constituency with the Tories on about 40 per cent of the vote and Labour and the Lib Dems neck and neck on 30 per cent, plus or minus one percentage point.

He showed very clearly and simply that what decided who won was who came third. The result had nothing to do with the primary preferences of constituents; it was the accident of who came third. That is the system that we are talking about putting in place.

The other thing about AV is that it acts to create a coalition of antagonists, picking the least unpopular rather than the most effective Member. AV disadvantages bold and unconventional Members, something that the House of Commons should treasure, and that is an important side effect.

We are measuring that system against a first-past-the-post system that has been very effective throughout history. It has been decisive, radically and ruthlessly so when it needed to be.

When it brought in the Attlee Government after the Second World War and the Thatcher government in 1979, it recognised times of crisis and responded to them.

At other times of crisis, when it decided that none of the major parties had all the answers, it created a coalition, and that is what it has done this time.

That is what it did in the 1930s and the 1970s. That system actually works well and it has done so without creating the gap between the electorate and the ruling elite that we have seen in countries with proportional systems. The system has delivered outcomes that are in

the tenor of the times and that have given an answer to the problems of the times.

We should be very careful about replacing that system. As has been said, this is a major constitutional change, greater than many that we have considered down the decades.

It should be a choice for the people – I agree with that – and it

should be an informed and deliberate choice.

What we need to make sure is that we inform the people and give them enough notice and enough knowledge to make the decision properly, and to have it resolved clearly.

What I fear is that instead we shall have circumstances where perhaps only 30 per cent of the population will turn out, so only 15 or 16 per cent will vote for the system, and on that basis, we shall have the biggest change in our constitutional history for half a century.