No alternative!

Approximately 65 million years ago a meteor landed somewhere around the Yucatan Peninsular in Mexico. It has long been thought that the most apparent result of this impact was the extinction of the dinosaurs. Unfortunately, today this belief was dispelled as our parliament discussed whether or not to drag itself kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century.

Watching the great lumbering beasts of the Tory Party; Douglas Hogg (the one who claimed for a moat), Sir Patrick Cormack, Richard Shepherd and John Gummer, combined age 273, rail against the proposals for voting reform was a painful exercise. They had no reasons other than just saying it had served us well, or to be more accurate, served them well for a long time. Cormack said it 'was against our constituents interests,' though he offered no evidence of this. Liberal Democrat David Heath had the best line, when he described it as a 'Neanderthal system,' which the Tories didn't even use to elect their own leader.

Electoral reform is not a new argument. The reform acts of 1832, 1867, 1884, 1918, 1928 and 1969 which variously extended the franchise, and lowered the age of voting, demonstrate that the state of voting in British elections has altered over the years. Every time these reforms came before parliament they met opposition, as the reactionary forces constantly attempted to prevent progress. However, once passed, they quickly became accepted, and although they will fight tooth and nail against reform to the voting system, eventually it will happen, and they will learn to live with it.

Parliament is in desperate need of more reform! The expenses scandal has done a lot of damage to its image, although, along with estate agents, MPs were never the most trusted members of society anyway. It did, however, confirm the impression in many minds, that politicians were just in it for themselves. The way that many then sought to justify themselves that it was within the rules, and approved by the committee, then lowered their estimation even more. It seemed as though they 'just didn't get it!'

The people that passed these claims are indeed at fault, but what gets us who just watch our MPs at work, was that they appeared be no 'moral' guidance going on here. As the woman Mark Oaten was staying with in 'Tower of Commons' asked, "(W)hy did you need three irons in two years? Or as the chef said to Austin Mitchell, "You earn £60,000 a year, and you can't afford to buy your own food!" To the vast majority of us, including those who are in well paid jobs, this is an unworldly lifestyle, in which it seems every little thing is claimable.

The Legg Reprt made many recommendations, MPs were asked to repay money, and all the main party leaders accepted the report in its entirety. Many MPs have appealed, on the basis they have been unfairly judged, and indeed, some have had their repayments reduced. These details are important, but to the ordinary voter, looks like members of parliament are still refusing to take responsibility for their actions, rightly saying that if they behaved in a similar fashion, they would not only lose their jobs, but probably end up in court. Although some members now face criminal charges, considering the scale and range of claims, four seems a very scant reflection.

Constitutional reform has been a long and painful process. During the election campaign in 1997 the Labour Party promised to change parliament, and end the hereditary principle in the House of Lords, and to 'make the House of Lords more democratic and representative.' This has been, and is being done, but much more slowly than people envisaged. The important thing, however, is that the Labour government has gone about the business of implementing changes, changes which Conservative governments did not intend to make, and they also consistently opposed devolution in Scotland and Wales. This has successfully been implemented, and extended to Northern Ireland, and now accepted by all parties. In politics changes are often opposed, but once successful, embraced by all sides.

So, last night's debate was to be the first step on the road to changing the way we elect our members of parliament. The method proposed is called the alternative vote, or AV. This is actually a very simple method, and the main burden falls upon the returning officers, not on the elector. All that would happen when you went into the polling booth is that when presented with your ballot paper, instead of just putting a cross against your preferred candidate you put a one. You can then rank all the other candidates in order.

Now, this is where confusion can result, and it is important that if a campaign ensues, is explained properly. Not all candidates have to be ranked. So for instance, if there are six in a seat; Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, UKIP, BNP, OMRLP, the voter could just vote number one Conservative, number two UKIP (or Labour one, Lib Dem two), thereby ensuring that the ballot paper can only be counted for those two candidates. It is important this is clearly understood, as many people may think they need to rank all the candidates in the seat.

The idea of AV is that a candidate has at least the tacit support of over 50% of voters. If no candidate achieves this, then the bottom candidates second preferences are redistributed, and so on, until someone obtains the 50% +1 mark. One of the arguments was that people would vote for the least worst option, well guys, if you talked to voters regularly, you'd know that's what they tend to do anyway.

The system is not proportional, and so the question as why bother is a relevant one. It about people knowing that their vote has value. Regardless of who you support as a first preference, unless you only voted for that candidate, your vote is not lost if they fail to win, or come top of the poll. It might also change the face of the House of Commons, allowing a stronger voice for parties outside the Conservatives and Labour. Those of you who follow these things will know it is estimated that the 1983 and 1997 elections would have resulted in bigger majorities. This may be true, but all those members would have had the support of over 50% of their constituents.

The fact that this could also lead to parties with extreme views having representation is a price that you sometimes pay in a democracy. It isn't pleasant to think that they may be heard being expounded in our parliament, but if you believe in a democratic system, then there are penalties for that. You either believe in democracy, or you don't!

The United Kingdom prides itself on its openness, and tolerance. It believes itself, with some justification, to be a country which encourages free speech, and that our parliament is a beacon of democracy. However, it seems that in many ways, that stops at the door to the Houses of Parliament. Not only for centuries have people been entitled to legislate based purely on which family they were born into, but also whether they reached a certain rank in the Church of England.

At last night's debate, there were members from both main parties, arguing that the current first past the post system, was fairer, and meant that we had 'strong' single party government instead of coalitions. This brings me back to the democratic principles we so pride ourselves on. Democracy is not just about being able to change our government every few years, it is also a set of principles, if ill defined, by which we are governed. It has been nearly eighty years since the last government elected by over 50% of those eligible to vote was elected. This, however, was the National Government led by Stanley Baldwin and was a coalition built to deal with the depression. It was in the nineteenth century when only the Conservatives and the Liberals were battling it out, that 50% was generally reached.

Ever since the emergence of third parties, Labour in the early twentieth century, and the revived Liberals in the post-WWII period, the governing party has failed to win 50%. That's fine many say, it means single party government! But what it can lead to is an elective dictatorship, where a party with a massive majority, can pass its legislation virtually unchallenged. Opposition becomes very difficult, as points, no matter how well made, can just be brushed aside.

The argument that many make is that AV could well lead to the Liberal Democrats being permanently in government, as they are the ones most likely to benefit from changes in the system. Theoretically they do, but that is depending on being able to predict how voters will rank the parties. There is an assumption that Labour voters will tend to rank Liberal Democrats highly, and vice versa, but local conditions, and preferences make that uncertain.

There is the question of whether people would change their voting habits under the new system. This is impossible to know, but it may mean voters feel more inclined to put their first preference at number one, in the knowledge that although they are unlikely to win, they have demonstrated their choice, and then can put their acceptable candidate at number two. Untidy, yes! But does this mean it will produce a worse result?

The cases of Italy and Germany, are mooted. Italy because of it's long periods of unstable governments, and in germany the way the Free Democrats have switched from coalition to coalition. Yes this is a danger, but just because it happens there, does that mean it will happen here?

This does take us back to the point about democratic government. In a democracy parties negotiate, and debate. Even with large majorities Conservative and Labour governments have failed to pass legislation, and often make deals with each other to get bills through. It is possible that formal pacts will emerge out of elections, as currently in Germany's 'grand coalition,' but also that a party could govern with a minority, and negotiate each piece of legislation. This could well lead to less being passed, which many would feel is a good thing in the first place.

So as well as the voter having more say, perhaps better, and more carefully considered legislation would be passed. Yes, this would almost certainly affect manifestos, as parties might not be able to make such wild promises, because they don't know what would be acceptable to the others. But, if the parties are having to be more considered in what they put forward, then other parties will be more willing to compromise their own agendas.

As a final point, I believe that it could lead to more honesty. This is a purely personal belief, so not to be taken as the intent of any political party. It is preposterous the Kenneth Clarke and Bill Cash are members of the same party. They have many principles that put them on the same side, but also many that are diametrically opposite. As the system became more accepted, then they could happily be members of different parties in the House. They would probably even vote the same way on many things, but they wouldn't be tied down by being on the same side where they differed. As I said, a personal view, but perhaps one worth considering for the future.

The case was often made that there is no time to get the change on the statute book before the election. However, as there is no intention of holding it on the same day, that is an irrelevant point. It was important to discuss it as it shows the government has real intent this time. Whatever circumstances have led Gordon Brown to change his mind on this issue, it is now a real Labour commitment.

At about a quarter past ten last night the House passed the amendment saying a referendum should be held by October 2011 by almost a 2-1 majority; 365 - 187. Whilst realising that this is merely the first step on the road to reform of the electoral system, the bill still has to get through the Lords, and time is an issue, I don't believe that is the real concern.

We now have a government, that will be going into a General Election, with a firm commitment to change the way we elect our members of parliament. Unlike 1997 and 2001, this has now been debated, and an amendment passed by a vote of MPs. Small steps, but parliament nearly always prefers evolution to revolution.

History is on the side of the reformers in this. The dinosaurs are being expunged slowly from parliament, time and tide are removing them. There may be a temporary set back if the Conservatives are returned at the election, but in the end, the system will change. It already happens in Scotland, and the Conservatives themselves supported it for the House of Lords. The days of the 'Neanderthal system' are ending, and the lumbering beasts passing will not be lamented.