When somebody involved in either the Yes or No camp says, “I have an interesting fact about the Alternative Vote”, you can usually guarantee that it’s neither a fact nor interesting. On this occasion, however, I’d be grateful if you set aside your scepticism, look into my crystal ball, and contemplate the political landscape at the end of 2013.
By then, two significant political events will have happened: the referendum on AV and the review of constituency boundaries. Both measures were enacted by the same legislation. And as the recent Electoral Commission’s new booklet on the referendum helpfully explains, their fates are intertwined:
“The ‘alternative vote’ system will be used after a review of the boundaries of the area that each MP represents (known as their constituency) is completed. This is due to happen between 2011 and 2013. The review will happen regardless of the outcome of this referendum.
“At the end of the review, the UK Parliament will vote on implementing the new boundaries. If the new boundaries are implemented, the ‘alternative vote’ system will be used for all future elections to the House of Commons.”
So AV can only come into force, even after a YES vote in the referendum, if MPs and peers vote in favour of the new electoral map, when it is presented to Parliament in October 2013.
That will be an interesting vote.
Imagine that AV has been backed by a narrow majority in the referendum, on a very low turnout. For many Tories, especially David Cameron, that’s a nightmare scenario. In those circumstances, would he be able to convince his own side to trigger the implementation of AV by voting through new boundaries?
Don’t forget, the Tories aren’t expected to get off scot-free when the Commission presents the new constituency map; at least thirteen Conservatives look set to lose their seats, and many more will be expected to campaign within vastly changed boundaries with no guarantee of success, especially under AV.
Come 2013, the price that Tory backbenchers are being asked to pay in order to keep Nick Clegg in Ministerial cars might begin to look a tad high. They would have the power to stop the introduction of AV by voting down the implementation of the new boundaries, if they joined forces with Labour. That would surely be a coalition breaker, but it’s not inconceivable. A lot of water will have flowed under Westminster Bridge by the end of 2013, and who knows how willing the Tory backbenches will be to toe the whips’ line.
Now look into a different crystal and imagine a “NO” vote in the referendum. That could conjure up a mirror image of the YES vote scenario. The defeat of AV would be a massive blow to the Liberal Democrats in more ways than one. They face an uphill struggle at the next election whatever happens.
But fighting it with FPTP and on a new electoral map would undoubtedly precipitate a disastrous result for the Liberal Democrats. By the end of 2013, their MPs will know what the new map will look like, and it won’t depict the sunlit uplands of Lib Demmery In Perpetuity. Would their backbenchers walk through the lobbies with Labour in order to safeguard their seats, even if this stretched the coalition to breaking point?
Whichever way the referendum vote goes on 5th May, Lib Dem and Tory party managers hold a ticking constitutional timebomb in their hands.
The secret AV escape clause
by Sadie Smith / 15 Apr 2011 08:37
Even if there is a yes vote in the AV referendum, the voting system will only change if MPs and peers vote in favour of the changed constituency boundaries, presented to Parliament in 2013, reveals Sadie Smith
Getty Images











Comments
Andy Kay / April 15 2011 9:23am
A very interesting piece (thank you) although I'm still fairly confused. However, I feel that a 'NO' vote will likely be the way I will go. 'YES' vote is far tii risky in my opinion
Sadie Smith / April 15 2011 9:49am
Yes, it did take me a good half an hour squinting over the implications before I got it. In summary: check back on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act (2011) in 2013.
With popcorn.
Andrew Mills / April 15 2011 4:15pm
Thanks for that Sadie, the plot thickens.
Martin Marprelate / April 15 2011 6:18pm
If the people of the Uk voted in favour of AV, surely the No faction, especially the Lords wouldl not DARE to go against such a result. I would not want to speak for Peace in the Realm if they did! Even they would surely stop at such a low type of cheat!
Jerry Hayes / April 15 2011 9:50pm
It's the boundary changes that terrify MPs more than AV. The problem will not be so much the Lords voting against as the delays because of judicial review. Turkeys don't normally like to vote for Christmas
Mark Pack / April 15 2011 10:17pm
It's not a timebomb - it's a safety net.
That's because putting through legislation for both boundary changes and the AV referendum was a key part of the coalition compromise, with each party getting one thing it was really keen on and in return supporting the other. By tying the implementation of the two together, the process stops one party getting what it wants but then welching on the deal and blocking the other.
Denis Cooper / April 18 2011 10:47am
My layman's reading of Section 4 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/56/section/4
is that:
a) Parliament could certainly vote to implement the new boundaries; but
b) Ultimately under sub-section (5) Parliament could not actually stop the government implementing them anyway; but
c) Without Parliamentary approval there would then be the possibiilty of legal challenges which would otherwise be barred by sub-section (7).
Edward Thompson / April 18 2011 5:40pm
surely if the constituencies are equalised then that is to the benefit of the tories. I think they would vote for this
Ken Hall / May 05 2011 5:42pm
If the tories lose 13 seats in the boundary review, then labour should lose over 60 to make the boundaries fair and equal.
At the moment there is a massive bias towards labour.