There have been calls for reform of our first-past-the-post voting system for electing MPs, since the mid 19th century. In 2005 first-past-the-post delivered a substantial majority for New Labour for just 22% of those entitled to vote. A proportional system is essential if the House of Commons is ever going to be able to assert its authority over government.

Proportionality is not the only property desirable in a voting system. New Labour have introduced a Closed List system of proportional representation for the elections of MEPs on the British mainland, thus not following the Northern Ireland precedent of using the Single Transferable Vote (STV). They have introduced a different system for the election of MSPs and members of the Welsh Assembly. Both these systems leave much of the power to determine who gets elected in the hands of the political parties. STV by contrast puts voters in control. Until the 1970s whenever proportional representation was discussed in Britain it was STV that was referred to. It is the system that is used in all public elections in the Irish republic and for all public elections in Northern Ireland except those to the Westminster parliament. In addition it was used for the first time for local elections in Scotland in May 2007. It appears to have been well received. An Edinburgh Labour Councillor writes:

"And ‘voters’ do seem to have found it easy to understand. The number of spoiled ballot papers for the Local Council elections was exceptionally low – unlike the serious problems with the Scottish Parliament AMS ballot paper – and indeed, all of Scotland had a lower % of spoiled STV ballot papers than Northern Ireland did in their Assembly elections in March 2007 … and they’ve been using STV for decades." - http://www.stvaction.org.uk/?q=node/225. See also: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/news.php?ex=0&nid=72

Using STV voters can give effect to choices not only on basis of party, but also gender, race, age and the candidates position on particular issues, which may deviate from the party's position. Voters place candidates in order of preference. The vote is initially assigned to the first preference. Later preferences are used if the candidate does not need that vote to secure election, or if he of she has no hope of election. For more on this go to: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votingsystems/systems.htm.

The use of STV to elect Westminster MPs would have the great benefit of making them less beholden to the party machine in that the fear of deselection would be lessened. However an equally powerful reason for toeing the line is that most MPs covet a job in government. We therefore conclude that though STV would be beneficial if it could be introduced, it may not be enough in itself to allow parliament to assert its independence of the Executive.

Labour and Conservative MPs are well aware that the existing first-past-the-post system allows them to share power permanently and would rather Britain becomes a third world nation, than lose their grip on power. It is likely that they would combine against the Lib Dems to keep first-past-the-post. In case you doubt this - as the two contenders for the Liberal Democrat leadership point out - Tories and Labour are combining on some local councils to keep the Lib Dems out. They are also combining in Parliament on some other issues. In the meantime, the House of Commons is little more than a second rate theatre, used to dupe the public into thinking there is meaningful opposition to government.

In the run up to the 1997 election there was hope of change. New Labour promised a referendum on the voting system. After the election Tony Blair set up an 'Independent Commission on the Voting System' under Roy Jenkins, to recommend an alternative to first-past-the-post, which would be put to voters in a referendum.The criteria included 'broad proportionality' and 'stable government' (the latter being code for single party government), which are of course incompatible. The Jenkins system would have ensured single party government, thus destroying the point of the reform. Nevertheless, incredibly, the leadership of the Electoral Reform Society persuaded the membership to vote for supporting the Jenkins system. In the event this had no consequences because the Labour party membership decided even this feeble reform was a step too far. Tony Blair was pleased to have been provided with an excuse to be able to drop the matter, and reneged on his promise. It is quite clear that proportional representation for the House of Commons is not currently on the agenda. In the meantime other measures have to be taken to change the culture of parliament.