I think that those who tabled the amendment did not want to overcomplicate the choices being put to voters. When people get into the nitty-gritty of constitutional change, first, they can get obsessive about having their own preferred system and, secondly, it can become very complicated. In our view, it is simply a device to delay any changes. We thought that it would be a better idea to have three broad choices, one of which was proportional representation, leaving it to the House of Commons to decide, if that was the preferred option—that is, if more than 50 per cent of people support it—on which particular variety they would legislate. That was the logic behind it.
I urge this amendment on the Government and ask them to consider it seriously. Not to take advantage of the chance opened up by a promised referendum in order to offer the electorate a major choice about the future of the electoral system would be to miss a major opportunity to test their appetite for political reform. I beg to move.
Amendment 16A (to Amendment 16)
Moved by
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Skidelsky
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 6 December 2010.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
723 c53-4 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 14:00:37 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_689586
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_689586
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_689586