Clearly, the crucial issue for the Members of the other place in supporting any reform here is they do not want to set up a rival Chamber. That is why electing in thirds is part of the answer, because this Chamber would never have a fresh mandate, or a mandate to rival the other place. I am seeking to conclude my remarks, as I have no desire to go on and on. I mention the secondary mandate—my own particular, perhaps weird, preference—because it means that it is highly pertinent how many constituencies there are in a region for how that mandate would work. People do not just vote on national lines, they vote on local ones. Where they put their first preference—if we go to AV—will be highly significant in then deciding how people get into this place. My own favoured position is to some extent being anticipated and skewed by this Bill, and I ask the Leader of the House to reflect on that. I beg to move this amendment.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Knight of Weymouth
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 17 January 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
724 c271 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 14:22:08 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_701680
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_701680
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_701680