Gar, the article below from the Guardian should provide an answer.
But note the end-papargraph, which I took from another Guardian report. It
is more than likely that Britain will wait 8 yrs before having a referendum
on PR. As you probably already know we will be using PR in elections for
European and regional parliaments.
Best wishes,
Aditya
Jenkins PR plan redraws
political map
By Michael White, Political Editor
Friday October 30, 1998
Tony Blair's Cabinet yesterday buried
its
differences over Lord Jenkins's
blueprint
for electoral reform and appealed
instead
for a serious - and protracted -
public
debate over the most radical shake-up
of
Westminster's voting system for more
than
a century.
The proposals would empower ordinary
voters, not the politicians, Lord
Jenkins
insisted. The reform would "give
voters
more choice, be more democratic in
the
constituencies and lead to a fairer
result
nationally," he declared. The package
would take up to eight years to
implement.
Paddy Ashdown led the pro-reform
forces
in enthusiastically welcoming the
report's
elaborate compromise - known as 'AV
Top-Up' - as William Hague denounced
it
as "a complicated and confused"
irrelevance. The Cabinet's low-key
response was designed to keep the
peace in
Labour's divided ranks.
It will also keep Mr Blair's
referendum
options open, possibly until after
the next
election. Though Labour has
introduced
different forms of proportional
representation (PR) for
Euro-elections and
devolution, Mr Blair has previously
declared himself "unpersuaded" by the
reformers' case for changing the way
MPs
are elected to the Commons.
Yesterday he "warmly welcomed" the
report, but was non-committal as to
whether he will eventually campaign
in its
favour, despite the likely opposition
of
many, if not most, cabinet
colleagues. They
have all promised not to become
'standard-bearers' for either camp.
"We've got to manage this process and
manage it well," Mr Blair told the
Cabinet
during a 20-minute discussion of the
report, described as 'more positive'
than
expected. That may be mood music, but
Mr
Blair does not wish to jeopardise a
valued
political alliance with Paddy
Ashdown,
aides stressed.
The Liberal Democrat leader was
equally
sensitive to the prime minister's
tactical
dilemmas. "The commitment to a
referendum is there. We expect it to
be
honoured. But it was never our
intention,
absolutely to close an option. That
is not
practical politics," Mr Ashdown said.
That
effectively means he would prefer a
referendum delayed to one lost. So
would
Mr Blair.
Lord Jenkins's proposals would see 80
to
85 per cent of MPs still directly
elected on
a constituency basis, albeit with
voters
ranking candidates in order of
preference to
ensure that each elected MP enjoys
more
than 50 per cent local support.
But the most significant change to
Britain's
ancient voting habits lies in the
'Top-Up'
element. Between 100 and 120 MPs
would
be picked from 80 local lists,
allocated to
ensure that each party's total number
of
MPs more accurately reflect the total
votes
cast.
If the Jenkins system had been in
place in
May 1997 Labour's huge Commons
majority of 179 would have been cut
to 77
and the number of Labour MPs cut from
419 to 368 - as they are all too
aware. The
Tories would have gained three seats,
making 168, while Liberal Democrat
ranks
would have swelled from 46 to 89.
MPs will debate the report next
Thursday.
In personally drafting the 90-page
report
the 77-year-old former Labour
chancellor
turned breakaway SDP leader was
making
what amounted to his final bid to
'break the
mould' of British politics by
empowering
the moderate centre and curbing
landslide
swings to left or right. Lord
Jenkins, whose
hybrid solution has been crafted to
assuage
traditionalist fears about weak
government
and MPs' weakened constituency ties,
insisted his recipe would "mostly
deliver
majority governments" - though
possibly
not in 1992 when the Tories scraped
home,
or 1974 and 1964 when Labour did the
same.
After the Cabinet discussed the
report, Mr
Blair issued a blandly balanced st
atement: 'I
welcome it warmly. The report makes a
well-argued and powerful case for the
system it recommends. It's very much
a
modification of the existing
Westminster
system rather than any full-blown PR
system as practised in other
countries.'
The Jenkins' Commission does not
suggest
a date for the referendum, but makes
clear
the proposed new voting system could
not
be introduced until the election
after next.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, November 02, 1998 10:21 PM
To: Pen-l
Subject: [PEN-L:816] Query: Blair and proportional rep.
Jim Heartfield or other Brits on this list:
I remember one progressive promise Blair made -- that he would hold
some sort of referendum on Proprortional Rep. in the UK. (A few weeks
after I heard he was considering making the referendum on instant
run-off instead -- a much less progressive alternative, but still one
which gives minor parties a fighting chance.) Since then I've heard
nothing about it. As a group of Clinton clones, has New Labor trashed
this particular promise, or is the referendum still scheduled for an
actual date and time? If it is really going to happen, which version
will be voted on?
--
Gar W. Lipow
815 Dundee RD NW
Olympia, WA 98502
http://www.freetrain.org/
