Former UK minister slams Senedd’s new voting system for promoting ‘party patronage’
Martin Shipton
The voting system that will be used to elect all Members of the Senedd next year disowns democracy and instead promotes party patronage, a former UK Government minister has claimed.
Brian Wilson, who held several posts in Tony Blair’s government, criticised the d’Hondt system, under which all 96 members of the expanded Senedd will win their seats.
Mr Wilson, a former journalist who was one of the first students on the renowned postgraduate training course at Cardiff University, focussed his comments on the Scottish Parliament, where 56 of the 129 MSPs are voted in via regional lists drawn up by their own parties.
The same system has been used to elect regional members of the Senedd, but from next May’s election will form the basis of the “closed list” electoral arrangements under which all MSs will win their seats.
‘Democratic principle’
Writing in The Scotsman newspaper, Mr Wilson, who was the Labour MP for Cunninghame North from 1987 to 2005, said: “The D’Hondt system, as it is grandly known, disowns the historic democratic principle that voters are selecting a candidate, rather than a party. It also creates two classes of MSP: those directly elected by constituents and others who are there as beneficiaries of party patronage.
“It is the principle that is wrong. If, as is quite possible, we have a finely balanced parliament next May, the calculations of a few individuals whom nobody has ever voted for could determine the balance of power, for reasons entirely of self-interest.
“There is a straightforward solution, which retains the principle of proportional representation. Curiously, it is one Holyrood itself adopted when legislating for local government reform in 2006 when it established a voting system based on multi-member wards [The Single Transferable Vote, under which voters list their chosen candidates in order of preference] . If it is good enough for councils, why not for Holyrood?
“Once elected, all MSPs would be equal, with actual constituents as opposed to the fiction of claiming everyone in vast regions as their electoral flocks. The late Margo Macdonald was the only independent ever elected to Holyrood as a regional MSP — and that is a very high bar to set.
“On the other hand, the ‘list’ is a mechanism for party hierarchies to get rid of MSPs who have proved too competent or interesting for their own good. Under Alex Salmond, the SNP disposed of Andrew Wilson, who made the cardinal error of speaking truth about Scotland’s economic realities.
“The Greens ousted the valuable but non-conforming Andy Wightman by pushing him down the Lothian list and gave us, ye gods, Lorna Slater instead. Voters had no say in any of this.”
Critic
The Electoral Reform Society (ERS), a key critic of Scotland’s electoral system, has previously argued that while better than first-past-the-post, the system used to elect MPs at Westminster, it is not truly proportional. They contended that the system is biased towards larger parties, as smaller ones struggle to win seats.
Mr Wilson, who held several ministerial posts, including the industry and energy portfolio from 2001 to 2003, spoke out after the Conservative MSP Graham Simpson, who was elected via the regional lists, defected last week to Reform UK. He said: “Simpson will now return to well-earned obscurity. The bigger question is how he came to be there in the first place and the answer lies in the absurd list system by which almost half our MSPs are returned to Holyrood without anyone voting for them.”
Mr Wilson added: “The right to make a five-minute speech in a brief debate padded out by party servants who know nothing of the subject is not an attractive or respectful option. If Holyrood is ever to be the centre of excellence once dreamt of, rather than an intellectual desert with very few oases, there must be reforms in how it works and is elected.”
For next year’s election, Wales has been divided into 16 super-constituencies, with each returning six MSs elected via proportional representation.
‘Disaster’
Jeff Jones, the former Labour leader of Bridgend council, said of Wales’ move to the closed list system: “It’s going to be a disaster. No one has bothered to work out the consequences of six politicians representing the same area. Where will the offices be for a start?
“Do politicians of the same party hold joint surgeries? Six letters on the same issue to the local authority . Seven if you include the MP. No accountability if they are hopeless because the political parties decide who will be in the electable position on the list .Take Afan Ogwr Rhondda. “If [sitting MS] ĐavidRees [who is number three on the closed list] doesn’t get elected there will be no Labour representative based in Aberafan.”
Support our Nation today
For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.
Wow did this article throw me. Initially it read as someone supporting the FPTP system, but I was delighted to continue reading to find out that they instead preferred the STV system.
The article is interesting and reminds us of concerns about the system that has been chosen, but… this can be refined later as Scotland did. What’s important for now is that we move away from the disastrous FPTP system that does not elect a candidate that most people would be ‘happy’ with.
Having lived in other countries, many people abroad wish they had few parties and FPTP. Other systems, STV, proportional representation have their draw backs also. It seems a common theme wherever I go; no one is actually happy with the democratic system put in place!
He has a point – STV would indeed be better.
But if his only link with Wales is the chance that he graduated in Cardiff, perhaps how things are done here isn’t really his concern? Though in fairness he seems to be directing his criticism at what’s due to happen in Scotland.
It was the Labour party that insisted that at the next Senedd election that it was a closed list. So, not allowing the STV for an open list of ALL canditates.
Every electoral system has disadvantages, but STV the fewest. That should be the system used for any lower house. Post-independence, Cymru will require a (smaller) upper house – that is the opportunity to introduce a second system – I prefer PR on a 5-region basis. Each would compensate for the limitations of the other. Overall, the outcome would be more democratic. See Australian states and federal systems for examples, some better than others…
that should have read ‘a different form of PR’
The real elephant in the room is low turnout at all elections. Once turnout falls below a certain percentage, that’s where there is a serious democratic deficit. It is after all, a civic duty.
Have always felt that PR is a better form of voting. There are several variations but it gets closest to giving you a representative.
The new system is PR. It’s the most proportional system going. It’s what you were demanding when you campaigned against AV in 2011.
But AV is just STV with one winner and is far more proportional than FPTP, so go figure.
I must admit I can’t remember the reason we changed to the new system. Having googled, I’m none the wiser. Can anyone remind me why we moved away from the D’Hondt system? Perceived Labour-Plaid stitch up is the obvious one (though looking increasingly stupid now), but Drakeford and Price must have had a democratic reason also?
People thought they were united in wanting PR. Now they have it, it’s suddenly not good enough.
At least Reform will be happy. They were demanding PR after the last election because the last thing they want is people looking too closely at individual candidates.
From what I can see it makes mathematical sense but not necessarily political sense. Where is the connection between the voter and our representative? Where is individual accountability, or do we just hope that our chosen Party hasn’t in its turn chosen a dud for the closed list.