« Representing the future - local government style | Main | New push on Votes at 16 »
December 14, 2007
MoJ starts consulting on Governance of Britain
Monday saw a hugely important event, and one which we hope will be repeated in locations across the British Isles. It was the first public consultation organised by the MoJ around its Governance of Britain document.
The event, a launch if you will, a pilot for what might be to come, was held in Leicester and attended by a coachload of MoJ officials, almost the full ministerial team, and the local Labour MPs (Keith Vaz, Patricia Hewitt and Peter Soulsby). We got ourselves invited along and even had a stand, which proved a useful focal point for talking to all those MoJ people and ministers, plus members of the public.
First up was a chance for representatives of Leicester's youth council to quiz the assembled politicians. The young people had been well prepared, as were their questions, but it didn't exactly lead itself to much of an interactive or consultative format. Then came the adults turn. There was an audience of 60 or so specially invited (by the MoJ / Leicester Council) local community representatives, plus maybe 6 local MVC-ERS supporters who responded to our invite. Their Q&A session was a bit harder-hitting, but unlike PMQs or the BBC's Question Time, there were no supplementary questions or a Chair making sure the panellist actually answered the question.
Still, this is what we learnt: (i) The Government Review (of electoral systems) will be published in January. (ii) Any change of system for electing MPs would have to go to a referendum.
Jack Straw had been keen when talking to us on our stand to impress upon us how he was not "barking mad" in his opposition to PR. He spoke about the difficulties of forming a strong government. We brought up the topic of PR for the Lords which we were able to agree on. However, when responding to a question on PR in the public session, Jack's tone changed. Straw attacked what he described as the "moral superiority" of electoral reformers, arguing that it was impossible to transform a proportionality of votes into a proportionality of power – smaller parties would hold too much power. He then reiterated his support for single member constituencies, whether by FPTP or Alternative Vote; but added without any evidence or justification that "I am sure we would win a referendum (in support of FPTP/AV)" if that was the choice against some form of PR. He also repeated the twisted and false allegation that "FPTP gives power to the largest minority, where as PR gives power to the smallest minority".
The real consultation bit came in small group discussions afterwards. The 5 questions posed, which will form the basis for future consultation work, were:
Do you fell you have a say in how the country is run?Do you want more of a say?
How do you want to have your say?
What role should politicians play?
What can Westminster politicians learn from you?
In terms of future events we were told by MoJ staff that this was very much a pilot and they had not started planning any more. When they do decide to hold more in the new year they advised us that their approach is to let the local council know – who then contact those they feel should be involved. When we find out the locations, we will be encouraging as many of our local supporters in those locations to attend as well.
Irrespective of that, the MoJ is seeking contributions from the public to the debate on the Governance of Britain. They are encouraging people to write in with their thoughts, especially their answers to the 5 questions above. Write to Ministry of Justice, 54 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6QW or email governance@justice.gsi.gov.uk
Posted by malcolmclark on December 14, 2007
Comments
My recollection is tht there was going to be a report on the review in November. I have a letter from Michael Wills , Minister of State at the MoJ, which states "The Green paper, the Governance of Britain, published on 3 July 2007 reiterates the government's commitment to complete a review of the experience of the new voting systems BY THE END OF THE YEAR" Now it is January next year - and so it goes on, after EIGHT YEARS.
In this same letter Mr Wills talks about a DEBATE about electoral reform. My comment to my MP (via whom the Wills letter came to me)was to ask why should there be debate? What we are concerned with, or SHOULD be concerned with, is why the unequivocal commitment in the 1997 manifesto to hold a referendum was abandoned? At this stage we should not be concerned with which system is finally to be adopted. That is a matter for the electorate to decide after they are fully briefed.
Jack straw is quite wrong when he says that any referendum would come out in favour of either FPTP or AV. He should read the UCL icpr report which contains the following paragraph:-
"Public understanding and attitudes to first-past-the-post - page 22 of ICPR report
3.21 Focus groups convened to test people’s reaction to different systems suggested that many citizens were unaware of any defects in first-past-the-post until they were pointed out. The attitude of surveyed respondents tended to change dramatically when they found out more about the operation of first-past the-post. Most were converted to some form of PR."
The so-called "reviews" promised in 2001 and 2005 were mere temporising smoke screens as a cover for the reneging on the 1997 commitment to a referendum. (The 2001 review was in any case stamped on by the arch-tribalists in the party) We can be absolutely sure that when/if the report comes out the most we can hope for is a nod in the direction of AV, which is likely to give NEW Labour an increased majority at the expense of course of other left-of-centre parties. AV would also rule out the realignment of the parties that would occur under STV in multi-member constituencies, so we would be likely to be lumbered with NEW Labour indefinitely
Incidentally , if Jack Straw believes that PR in general gives too much power to smaller parties why did he devise the system for the EU elections using the worst possible type of PR - the closed list system. Did he have his eye on the future and was seeking to have a home-made PR system (for elections that did not matter very much since very few vote anyway) which he could point to as "what happens under PR".
He clearly has not read the pamphlet issued by a Tory government in the early seventies to the people of Northern Ireland praising STV enthusiastically - and by implication condemning FPTP.
The result of this pilot meeting is depressing to say the least. I wonder why the campaigning organisations have apparently so much hope of a positive outcome of the so-called "review" and are not constantly taxing Straw in particular with the need to hold the referendum promised in 1997 and so cynically reneged on. (Any pressure for implementing the referendum promise should demand also that STV be included as one of the alternatives - and of course that the referendum should be preceded by an educational process to dspel some of the ignorance referred to in the icpr report.)
Posted by: Joe Patterson at December 14, 2007 05:35 PM
We're democrats and believe in free speech, but we're also committed to civil and rational debate. We reserve the right to delete material posted to our site, but we hope and expect to exercise this right rarely if at all.
