A response to ‘PR and AV are problems not solutions’

By Julian Ware-Lane / @warelane

There is an irony in the positions of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy in that while attempting to make the internal workings of the party more democratic, it nonetheless seeks to deny this to the electorate as a whole. That said, we do need a wider debate on the issue of electoral reform.

I have to say that as far as I can see, the party is not committed to reform, only to a debate, and I fail to see how that can be anything but good.

Peter Willsman’s article begins badly:

“[Supporters of proportional representation… are trying to suggest that the electoral system is somehow to blame… [for the expenses scandal]”.

Not so. Those of us who support reform do not blame anything but an expenses system that is not fit for purpose. That we link this to an electoral system that is serves to obstruct accountability is, I believe, sensible.

First Past the Post does deliver majority Labour governments, but it delivers far more majority Tory governments. I have argued that PR would deliver more Labour Governments, albeit as the senior partner in coalitions. I see this as preferable to Tory government.

That he links electoral reform to primaries is unfortunate; I see the latter as a Tory sop to reform.

Peter’s statement that “PR produces coalition governments, in other words governments which no one voted for” is contrary to logic. The current Government was elected with 35% of the vote, whereas PR would force governments to have at least 50%.

I am no Blairite, I am a Socialist. For me reform goes beyond the voting system. I want votes at 16, and an elected second chamber. I also want a more secure voting system and would like technological solutions to be explored.

Perhaps I should finish by stating that I am not ‘New Labour’. Neither am I ‘Old Labour’; I am plain ‘Labour’. To put the case against reform into factionalist terms illustrates Peter Willsman’s desperation.