« Progress democratic reform rally - 18 June | Main | Oxford academic forecasts a change of voting system for Westminster »
June 19, 2009
Elections Minister prejudges debate and also spins against reform
You know something is amiss when a newspaper comes up with this title for an article about the Minister in charge of democracy and elections: "Labour minister - electoral reform isn't such a good idea"
The remarks reported on were those of Michael Wills at Ministry of Justice Questions in the House of Commons on Tuesday. These remarks were then followed by this article written by Michael Wills in The Guardian on Wednesday calling for "change now" and more than hinting at electoral reform.
Turns out, Elections Minister Michael Wills has been cunning / disingenuous (delete as appropriate) and been talking down the merits of reform to MPs in the Commons chamber whilst talking up the prospects to Guardian readers. It makes perfect sense for a politician: talk to some of the defenders of the status quo (MPs) in one way; talk to some of those most supportive of democratic reform (Guardian readers) in another way.
But this isn't even subtle. Not is it at different times: the Commons answers and the Comment is Free article were in effect spoken / written on the same day.
It gets worse though. In the Commons chamber, Michael Wills plays up many of the myths and straw men about PR: coalitions; unstable governments; potential power of smallest parties; letting in extremists. He also does an effective job of spinning the government's own neutral review of voting systems, essentially shining a harsher light on the PR systems already introduced than the review itself.
It gets even worse though. In the Guardian article he is all for "action now; no more "reviews or debates about whether to have a debate". Yet in the Commons chamber he seems keen only for a debate and says "the Prime Minister confirmed last week that the Government would shortly be launching a debate on electoral reform." Committing to a referendum on the voting system no later than the next election should be exactly the kind of action that Wills is wanting to see. But no, he shys away from referenda and such ways of implementing radical reform ... in favour of other methods (National Councils and other talking shops) which would enable the issue to be kicked into the long grass.
The real villany of Michael Wills' comments is perhaps this: he seems to be seeking to prejudice the outcome of any debate, both within the Commons and outside. In the Commons he continues to make arguments for keeping First-Past-the-Post, and against real change. He certainly is failing to keep neutral. In avenues like The Guardian he then seems to pushing (or at least giving unsubtle hints about the benefits of) the Alternative Vote. Yet in that same article, he also says "reform of the electoral system should not turn on which party benefits most. The debate must be about principle. Which system secures legitimacy for the public?"
Well, he can't have it both ways. How can the debate be about principle when he has a vested interest in the outcome - as a sitting MP and as a government minister? Especially when he takes such public views.
Michael Wills needs to step back, be systems neutral and simply facilitate an open and truly national public debate. We welcome him promoting the need for a debate, and the need for urgent radical reform; but he must not be allowed to prejudice the outcome of that debate, or fix it for his (and many in the government's) preferred system AV to come out on top.
As soon as the government announces it will hold a referendum on the voting system, including giving voters the choice of a more proportional system, then Michael Wills can validly have his say; along with the entire electorate. But until that time his pronouncements only serve to underscore the fact that politicians won't implement real changes that take power away from their and their parties' control, unless public pressure forces them to do it.
Be part of that public pressure: write to Michael Wills c/o Ministry of Justice, 102 Petty France, London SW1H 9AJ or email michaelwillsmp@parliament.uk
Posted by malcolmclark on June 19, 2009
Comments
However much Mr. Wills, and other like minded politicos would wish it otherwise, voting reform in 2009 won't go away, any more than in 1909, votes for women would go away.
The tides of voting reform sweep back and forth, like the sea attacking sea defences. With each high tide, the defences against change get weaker and weaker. And sooner or later, the sea wall will have to give way...
Posted by: Nigel Baldwin at June 19, 2009 09:00 AM
"Michael Wills needs to step back, be systems neutral and simply facilitate an open and truly national public debate."
Michael Wills’s double-dealing is just one small part of the manoeuvring of the two main parties to retain FPTP.
I must confess that I am not at all happy with most campaigners’ approach to dealing with the situation presented by New Labour’s reneging on their 1997 electoral reform commitments and Gordon Brown’s failure, right up to the last minute, to revive these commitments.
I certainly do not share the apparent confidence in the outcome of a proposed referendum to be held at the same time as the election. My fear, from experience, is that the majority of votes will be for the retention of FPTP. This would be a disaster and would support the distorted reasoning of people like David Kawczynski MP. And whatever the outcome, the Tories - who will probably get in at the next election - will just ignore it and carry on with FPTP as Cameron has clearly implied in numerous references to the subject. So electoral reform of any kind will be as far away as ever.
I am also disappointed that we are still talking of "debate", regardless of what Brown or Wills are saying. We have been "debating" for the last 12 years (and for over 100 years before that!) and we still have FPTP for Westminster - the only example of this system in the EU.
WE should rather be talking of aggressive campaigning for STV - and only STV - and in the meantime adopting, faute de mieux, the pragmatic tactic of lobbying already largely sympathetic Labour MP’s to support the introduction of AV (ie STV in single-member constituencies ) BEFORE the next election - a much safer option. (In this regard I see that Malcolm Wicks, my constituency MP, has come out in favour of AV, although the reports suggest that he is terming it PR)
In connexion with AV it would not be out of place to quote the last two pargraphs from the Executive Summary of the ERS study of AV:-
"18 AV could be introduced quickly and simply - it would not require complex legislation, new boundaries or a referendum.
19 There is valid debate on whether or not AV would hasten the introduction of a more proportional system. Its intrinsic merits may mean that it persists for a considerable time. But there are avenues that lead from AV to further reform, such as hung parliaments, anomalous results, and harmony between component parts of the UK".
I would add that there would be merit in the very fact of getting rid of FPTP and introducing the electorate to a clearly fairer system which would make them more ready to acccept radical change
It is my guess that once AV was introduced the Tories would find great resistance to reversion to FPTP; so the road to STV would still be open when more favourable circumstances arose.
Posted by: Joe Patterson at June 19, 2009 11:26 AM
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.
