« The Countdown is on to Nov 18 | Main | End of the line for the Westminster Gravy Train »
September 11, 2009
Brown ponders voting reform referendum
"The idea is gaining support in the Cabinet, and Labour now looks certain to fight the next election on a firm commitment to scrap the current voting system"
So reports The Independent in a piece today.
What makes this more than idle speculation? According to the Indy:
The Government's Democratic Renewal Council, chaired by Gordon Brown, met this week. Although no final decision was taken, The Independent has learnt that the options it is considering include:
* Rushing through legislation before the election to allow a referendum on electoral reform shortly afterwards;
* A polling day referendum on the principle of changing the system, to be followed by a second plebiscite if there were a "yes" vote;
* A polling day referendum on a switch to AV or "AV plus", to be implemented at the following general election;
* A Labour manifesto commitment to change the system if the party retains power.
One cabinet source said: "The idea of a referendum on election day is on the agenda. It is a very live issue."
The Independent also follows up the piece with a stirring editorial in support of voting reform, and calling on people to keep up the pressure on politicians to move forward with reform:
Put simply, our voting system is malfunctioning. The country is replete with "safe" parliamentary seats, which render the votes of millions of the electorate effectively meaningless. Meanwhile, under the present first-past-the-post system smaller parties have no chance to translate their support into representation at Westminster. We see the baleful consequences of this in increasingly meagre turnouts at elections and the growing alienation of the general public from their political representatives.
Labour has proved a fickle supporter of electoral reform over the years. And David Cameron, despite the Conservative leader's professed desire for a "massive, sweeping, radical distribution of power" has set his face against reform of the voting system. Yet none of this provides an excuse for those who believe that reform would be invigorating for our democracy to give up.
On the contrary, the fact that Labour looks likely to put electoral reform on the political agenda in the run-up to the next election means that public pressure on the two main parties (the Liberal Democrats have always been advocates) is more vital than ever. Labour must finally deliver on a promise it made more than a decade ago. And the Conservatives need to match their reforming rhetoric with serious proposals. Now is the time to impress on all of our politicians that electoral reform is the people's will.
Posted by malcolmclark on September 11, 2009
Comments
This is an interesting development, but one I feel will still need a lot of pushing to actually happen. The last 3 Labour manifesto’s talked about electoral reform but we all know what happened there. I have written to my local Labour member about this but he is strongly in favour of FPTP, using the usual “it’s easy to understand” & “maintains a local link” arguments. He is stepping down at the next election and the new Labour candidate holds very similar views on our voting system. However the seat could be taken by the SNP, and I would hope they will support electoral reform, and reforming the Lords.
I would really hope this issue could be made into a major part of the election, supported by the LibDems/SNP/ Plaid Cymru/Greens/UKIP etc. However I am concerned by the figures offered by the independent. In the article their model for AV+ has only 15-20% of MP’s elected using a PR system, so that would not make a major difference. As usual other options such as STV in multi-member electorates or investigating the Danish model of PR don’t get a mention. And I cannot shake the nagging fear that all Labour will offer us if a choice between FTPT and AV with single member seats. Another concern is that many people might see this as Labour trying to change the system to hangon for another term and vote against it.
Posted by: Tancred at September 11, 2009 12:47 PM
Labour are not considering proportional representation. AV is favourite amongst many Labour MP'S. This is certainly not proportional although it could represent more fairly the WEIGHT of left-of-centre opinion through later preferences for Labour or LibDEms. Jenkins's AV+ system can hardly be called proportional: its ratio of around 80:20 AV to additional MP's in no way compares with the Scottish 57:30 ratio of FPTP to top-up. And many Labour MP's want to hang onto the present system.
AS to the proposed referendum: here the main consideration is (or ought to be)that if the Tories get in under FPTP - as seems likely - they will just ignore whatever the referendum results happen to be. Moreover it is in any case by no means as certain, as some optimists seem to believe, that the verdict will be for electoral reform of any kind. This is especially the case as there will be no prolonged intensive educational process as proposed by Jenkins, since there is not sufficient time before the next election.
There is it seems to me therefore a case for bringing in AV BEFORE the next election. The Tories will of course squeal (which would be further confirmation of the fact that it is FPTP which has given us a Tory century). These squeals could and should be ignored.
Thus the early possibility of true PR would be left open - in the form of STV in multi-member constituencies developed simply and logically from AV which is STV in single-member constituencies.
If the Tories got in under AV in 2010 they would I submit find it extremely difficult to revert to FPTP
Any other course could very well mean that electoral reform of any kind would be deferred for at least another two decades.
Here are the final two paras of the Executive Summary of the Electoral Reform Society's 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."
Posted by: Joe Patterson at September 11, 2009 04:35 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.
