Fight for the right to filibuster

I am loving the Lords debate about electoral reform - especially the bit about prime numbers. I'm most amused to see Labour, who drivelled on about family friendly hours and ending all night sittings in the 1990s suddenly converted to the filibuster (though Faulkner is still denying this is what it is).

I'm delighted they're filibustering and I think the Liberals et al miss the point when they claim that is undemocratic. Firstly, the Lords isn't meant to be, and secondly, if all they did was vote, we could do legislation in minutes. Instead, we debate, and if people feel so strongly they're willing to stay up all night to delay it, that's fine. Electorates won't stand for it being done all the time, and in the end government will pass it. So, another anathema on the Liberals.

To the points of substance. I think the issues under debate are being confused unhelpfully. Let's break them out (apart from AV, because no-one cares)

• Is the constituency plan proposed gerrymandering?
• Is the proposed equalisation plan a good idea?
• Is 600 the right number of constituencies?
• Should AV and the equalisation be yoked in legislation?

Firstly, gerrymandering: now, it may be that the process for carving up the new constituencies is corrupt, but no one has alleged this. Instead the accusation on gerrymandering seems to be that this will benefit the Tories. Indeed it will, but only because the current system benefits Labour. Equalising constituency sizes is, on a numerical basis, fair; not gerrymandering

Is it a good idea? Obviously not. This - hidden in this unhelpfully titled article is the real point. It is pointless to keep constituencies if they don't represent real boundaries. That's a bad idea, but it's not gerrymandering, and it's not that important. It's damning that Labour is up all night to block a reduction in its MPs, but not about 'too far too fast' cuts.

The final two points seem to have become Labour causes and I cannot fathom how they are allowed to get away with it. On numbers, while rhetorically it's easy to shout 'why not 500? why not 700?' but why 651? The number is arbitrary and irrelevant. Just pick one and get on with it. And the yoking point is irrelevant. Lots of things are yoked together, especially in coalitions. I suggest if you want to see irrelevant things yoked together in bills you should visit the States. This is mild, and perfectly reasonable. You could divorce the controversial from the uncontroversial, but you could do that with every bill; we'd be here forever with piecemeal legislation and exhausted parliamentarians.

Ultimately, everyone seems to be under a mistaken view of the purpose of an electoral system. Politics is not there to reflect with accuracy the views of the people, thank God. Rather it's there to ensure stability, law, and then prosperity and well-being. A 'democratic' system isn't better if it leads to chaos or war (as this article on Tunisia fails to understand). So, I would recommend everyone stops quibbling, and stops trying to change things, especially the Lords, for they're the best bit of our parliament, even (nay especially) in filibuster mode.