« Myth-Busting Champions wanted | Main | The public perception of politics and politicians »
April 01, 2009
Welcoming the 'Real' Constitutional Renewal Bill
This from the Electoral Reform Society on Tuesday:
The Electoral Reform Society has warmly welcomed the Constitutional Renewal Bill which Lord Tyler presented in the Lords today.
The Society’s Chief Executive Dr Ken Ritchie said:
“Constitutional reform has rarely been off the Government’s agenda, but the debate – through neglect or design – has gone precisely nowhere. Thanks to Lord Tyler’s bill Parliament will finally have a proper debate on the changes we really need in our constitution.
“To date the Government’s ideas have been worthy but woefully inadequate. By ignoring the voting system they have skipped over the most basic way citizens relate to government. The fact that a party supported by a minority of the people won the last, and will certainly win the next General Election, is no mere detail - it is the foundation all our politics rests upon.
“This Bill would give us something Labour promised in 1997 but never delivered - a referendum on how we elect our MPs. Sadly it will not be in time to change the rules of the game before the next general election produces a hopelessly unrepresentative parliament.”
The Bill would also lead to a referendum with a question set by a ‘citizens’ assembly’ - an approach that has been tried and tested elsewhere.
The Electoral Reform Society has long advocated the use of a citizens’ assembly, and one that is sufficiently large to represent all sections of society.
“A citizens’ assembly would allow the people not the politicians to set the rules for politics. This decision doesn’t need vested interests, just for MPs to take leap of faith in the citizens they represent.
“It will be interesting to note which politicians are prepared to trust the voters.”
Lord Tyler said:
“This redraft of the Government’s Bill could give effect to more than a decade of Labour manifesto commitments and Prime Ministerial statements. It is professionally drafted and could be debated in both Houses before the General Election if Gordon Brown wills it.
“As he prepares for his swansong in office, he has a choice. He can leave Britain with Conservative constitutional relics, or he can move the country on and leave a real legacy of democratic change.”
Posted by malcolmclark on April 01, 2009
Comments
"Sadly it will not be in time to change the rules of the game before the next general election produces a hopelessly unrepresentative parliament"
And this is the crux of the present situation. Even if NEW Labour were minded to do so it is now far too late to hold a referendum - preceded by the absolutely essential educational process - and arrange necessary boundary changes before the next election.
If the Tories get in at the next election, which seems most likely, we can say goodbye to electoral reform of any kind for the foreseeable future. There no chance at all that they will countenance reform. David Kaufczynski is even running a campaign to revert to FPTP where there is already a reformed system - the GLA, EU, even Scotland.
It therefore seems to me - and I have said this many times - that the only pragmatic tactic, in fact forced on us by NEW Labour’s cynical reneging on their 1997 commitment, is to try to persuade Labour MP’s to introduce AV BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION. (There is a lot of support for AV among Labour MP’s) There may still be time to do this since no boundary changes would be necessary; and indeed, since the same single-member constituencies would remain, there may be no need for a referendum.
We all know that AV is no more proportional than FPTP. However it is disproportional in a different way and could represent more fairly the balance between the left-of-centre and the right-of-centre voters since not so many votes would be completely wasted. Furthermore it would get rid of the huge nonsense of FPTP where a few thousand floating voters in effect have such a large influence on election outcomes. And above all it could eventually be a stepping-stone to STV in multi-member consituencies.
As to timing - I’m quite sure that Jack Straw (so adept in ensuring that the conclusion of last year’s report on the review of the new systems was that FPTP should be retained - as we all knew it would be ) could convincingly link the introduction of AV to the renewed debate on constitutional reform
Posted by: Joe Patterson at April 1, 2009 12:37 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.
