The noble and learned Lord virtually took the words out of my mouth. There is a difference in that, if there is a penalty on the candidate, it does not follow that the penalty should then be on the voter who has in all good faith expressed a second preference. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, made the point that it could be a way to penalise smaller parties, or indeed, as he put it, local campaigns. Let us remember that at recent general elections in this country and at a Scottish election in 2003 a candidate posing hospital closures won. It might not necessarily have been obvious at the outset that these people were going to get far more than 5 per cent, but the fact that they are perhaps not mainstream in no way means that they should be devalued. It may well put people off from voting for candidates who appear to be coming from a local campaign, or let us say a non-mainstream party, if it was thought in some way that the second preference was not going to count. The object, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, is to broaden choice, and I fear that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, would not contribute to that broader choice. I therefore urge him to withdraw his amendment.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 20 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 c972-3 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-11-15 10:44:20 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_695729
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_695729
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_695729