Why I didn't go to dinner with Katie and Dan

Why I didn't go to dinner with Katie and Dan 

Recently, I received an invitation to dinner - very nice, one might have thought.  Of course, this particular dinner was due to be happening in London, which is some distance from where I live.  There was also a cost of £45, but that really didn't seem so bad, even when travelling costs were taken into account, considering that well known television historian Dan Snow was due to be at the same dinner and would be conducting a guided tour through the Imperial War Museum afterwards.  As someone who took my degree in history and enjoys good food to boot, this sort of thing would normally be right up my street, so to speak.  I decided not to go though.  'Why not?' you might be forgiven for asking.  It was simply this: despite the very reasonable cost of dinner and the opportunity to chat with the many erudite people who would be there, I declined because the invitation I received came from Katie Ghose, of the Electoral Reform Society, in whose cause the dinner was being held.

The ERS of course, is well known for its ongoing campaign for proportional representation.  Their cause has a great many supporters, and not just among the membership the Liberal Democrat Party.  I am not one of them though, and I think my argument on the matter has as much going for it as those of Angela Eagle, Polly Toynbee, John Denham, Lord Tyler, Nick Clegg's special advisor Polly MacKenzie and others who were due to be attending the dinner.
There are many who argue that our existing 'First Past the Post' electoral system is unfair.  They may well be right: certainly many people's votes count for little when a party they have not voted for wins in a 'winner takes all' style election.  Most of these same people, like the ERS, argue that PR is a fairer way to elect our representatives.  Democracy would be seen to have been done when a party received a representation in parliament directly proportionate to its share of the vote in a national election - each party would have been treated fairly for a change.  Fair enough, but is that the same as what most people in this country understand as democracy?  I would contend that it is not.  I think it is reasonable to suggest that most voters believe in a contractual aspect to their occasional shot at direct democracy.  They believe that in exchange for electing MPs, they have the right to expect those MPs to represent their views in parliament, along with expecting that they can call on their MPs to help them sort out their more intractable problems - in short: that an MP is there to represent his or her constituents.  This would appear to be confirmed by the number of emails most MPs receive.

The problem with PR, is that MPs elected under it do not represent constituents, but instead represent party machines which may be largely unaccountable to the public, except when approaching elections.  Parties are free to follow their own ideological ends, no matter how divorced from public opinion, secure in the belief that no MP who values his seat will dare vote against the party line, for fear of being deselected.  In such a situation, most MPs would instantly choose the whip's wish, which could ensure a sustained career, over a mailbag full of letters from voters begging them to vote against their own party.

Under our present system, listening to the views of constituents and voting against your own party is not without its risks, but as Gunnar Beck wrote in the Spectator recently in relation to Germany, where you have proportional systems, voting against your own party can be tantamount to political suicide.  The result is 'consensus' politics and a political conveyer belt.  The idea of representative democracy goes out of the window - voters only matter during elections.  At all other times parties are free to go on ignoring public opinion, confident that their spin doctors can get the public to give them enough votes come the next election to win it for them.  We might assume that voters would see though this, but when all parties can act that way, election spin might end up being the only thing which separates them.

Where PR in Germany has resulted in oligarchic Euro-mania in the face of public scepticism, in New Zealand, where I spent many years and maintain many close links, a mixed PR system has resulted in often overworked constituency MPs, alongside list MPs who are simply there to vote as the party directs and who are sometimes openly dismissive and often disdainful of public opinion.  They know that their value to their parties will result in high positions on party lists, meaning they have little need be accountable or appeal to the voter to retain their seats.  Those actually appealing to the pubic and thus electable for constituency seats will be lower down the list, to ensure the party yes-men and women will always get in.  A few list MPs do do constituency work alongside constituency MPs, but many do not.  This situation is doubtless mirrored in many other countries where parties have won the right to be proportionally represented.  I don't think this is what people in this country want from their democracy.

Now, I'm not trying to argue that parties here don't already do things the public don't like, or that our MPs always represent their constituents views - they often don't.  The difference is that most British voters can still expect representation by their MPs, regardless of who they voted for, and may hope to influence them when they feel the MP's party does not represent their interests.  I'm not sure that that would always work so well under PR.
So FPP may be far from perfect, but I believe in representative democracy.  Whatever Katie and co. think, dinners and museums notwithstanding, I don't think PR can necessarily deliver that.