Our petition to the PM: a response at last
Posted by malcolmclark on September 12, 2008 | Comments (0)
So, the PM (or rather the Ministry of Justice) has finally responded to our petition that 'democracy shouldn't be deskbound' - ie that debate on electoral systems needs to be conducted in public and not controlled by the politicians who have a vested interest in the status quo. Here's the response, as posted on the no:10 site, a mere 5 months after we submitted the petition:
"The Government agrees that the debate on electoral reform is not just for politicians: that is why we published the Review of Voting Systems on 24 January this year. The Review can be accessed at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/voting-systems-review.htm. The Review was the Government’s contribution to this debate, and we are interested in people’s views in response to it, including about which voting system they favour.
The Review examines the experiences of the different voting systems introduced across the United Kingdom since 1997, and assesses the advantages and disadvantages of each. It also considers other systems, including some in operation internationally. We hope it will inform the wider debate on this issue. However, the Government continues to believe that the current voting system for UK general elections works well, and that any future change would require the consent of the British people in a referendum.
The Government’s immediate focus in the area of constitutional reform is on the range of proposals set out in the Governance of Britain Green Paper, published in July 2007, and on the significant changes planned to achieve a substantially or fully elected second chamber to replace the current House of Lords, as set out in the House of Lords Reform White Paper that was published on 14 July. The White Paper is available at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/elected-second-chamber.htm.
We are planning a number of discussions on other proposals in the Governance of Britain Green Paper. Details of current consultations or other discussions on specific policy areas will appear on the Governance of Britain website http://governance.justice.gov.uk."
This response was published an hour after I launched a campaign on a smiliar theme - this time the hook is the MoJ's weekend voting consultation. Cynics might say that it has taken a lot of arm-twisting, reminders and a new public campaign to get even this response from the Ministry of Justice. Purely coincidental timing I'm sure though.
I'll analyse what the MoJ is saying more thoroughly shortly - am keen to hear what you think as well; especially if you were one of the 588 signatures made to wait over five months for the official response. But three things immediately strike me:
1)If the review is the government's contribution to the debate, and that is all (as they seem to intimate), that is a very poor show indeed, abdictaing all responsibility for encouraging or facilitating the debate they say they want.
2) "The Government believes that the current voting system for UK general elections works well" - for whom? And surely they don't actually believe that themselves, else why would they have launched the extensive and expensive Governance of Britain initiative and all these consultations, Speaker's Committee and other inquiries to look into problems with turnout, engagement and diversity issues?
3) Why haven't any of the petition signatures been invited - even at this stage - to participate in the Governance of Britain regional meetings that have been going on around the country? Or any other constructive fora for debate organised by the MoJ?
Governance of Britain regional events
Posted by malcolmclark on August 08, 2008 | Comments (0)
Following the launch event in Leicester the Ministry of Justice Governance of Britain team have held five more regional events in Bristol, Nottingham, Newcastle, Brighton and London. Small events without any external organisations present, these were designed as a straight discussion between assembled members of the public and Michael Wills MP, Minister of State for Justice. Interestingly, the write-up (pdf) makes good reading from our point of view:
"The Westminster system of adversarial party politics was off putting for most voters and hindered effective decision-making. Decisions were often made for short-term political gain. ... Our current electoral system, whilst having the merit of producing stable government, results in a disproportionate number of seats for the governing party. In addition because the majority of seats are considered safe for one or other of the parties, a large number of the votes cast make no difference to the outcome of a general election. This produces a disincentive to vote. Participants thought that a system of proportional representation (with or without the constituency link) would have a positive impact on turnout.�
People and Politics Day - video clip
Posted by malcolmclark on March 20, 2008 | Comments (1)
FrictionTV - a youtube for campaigners - interviewed me on our stand at the People and Politics day in Westminster on Tuesday. The clip - all 55 seconds of it - can be viewed here.
How bloggers can take part in our campaign - part 2
Posted by malcolmclark on February 28, 2008 | Comments (1)
Go here to get the code which will generate this lovely graphic of our pledge:
How bloggers can support our campaign
Posted by malcolmclark on February 27, 2008 | Comments (0)
If you have a blog or a website, you can help promote our campaign by adding this little piece of code onto your site and ... voila, you get a mini-version of our Democracy isn't Deskbound campaign. Perfect for a blog post and a great way to spread the word about our campaign. Thank you Murky for coming up with this.
Harman wrong on her Government's own report
Posted by malcolmclark on February 25, 2008 | Comments (3)
Quick, somebody send Harriet Harman a copy of her Government's review of electoral systems. For she appears either not to have read it; or to have misunderstood what she's read; or at worst to be wilfully misrepresenting what the report concluded. And given the review was done from an academic, non-judgemental viewpoint, that's a serious matter.
In answer to a well put reader's question (by Ruth Coleman) in today's Independent on "you have spoken in the past about boosting democracy. So how can you be against proportional representation?"
Harriet responded:
"We have introduced proportional representation in European elections, Scottish council elections and London Assembly elections. We'll shortly be publishing a review of how the new systems worked. But the evidence suggested is that it doesn't boost turnout and people find it complicated."
In contrast, the review itself concluded:
We do not find, on balance, any evidence to suggest that voters find one voting system easier or more confusing than another voting system.� (para 6.170)
Proportional systems were found, on international comparison, to be associated with higher voter turnout than First Past the Post and other majoritarian systems. (para 7.97)
As an addendum to that final point, it should be noted that since none of the elections included in the review were conducted under First-Past-the-Post before they changed to a form of PR, no easy comparisons of turnout can be made. However, the Scottish Local Elections in 2007 under STV did see a reasonable increase in the total number of votes cast compared with under FPTP; partly as a result of many more seats being competitive and some in rural areas being contested for virtually the first time.
Voting systems say more than we think
Posted by joshloewenstein on February 14, 2008 | Comments (0)
One of Make Votes Count's directors, Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform political officer Mary Southcott wrote a column in February's Progress magazine discussing the government's review alternative systems of voting. Southcott concludes that what voting system we use says more about Britain than what Labour has recognised.
Voting matters symbolically because our democracy needs to be legitimate and it matters pragmatically because of its influence on parties’ campaigns and policies. Climate change was assumed not to interest swing voters and so took a long while to filter into a national debate. Voting systems change not only the result but the nature of politics itself. Often without majorities, Labour in Wales and Scotland have built consensus by working with other parties, key stakeholders and communicating with the media to ensure that voters understand policy and own it democratically. Some systems reinforce and others transcend tribalism. Some make votes count and others allow floating voters to blot out informed discussion on urgent matters. So what we do about voting says more about us than perhaps Labour has hitherto recognised.
More misrepresentation of the review
Posted by joshloewenstein on February 14, 2008 | Comments (0)
The Independent's John Rentoul wrote Sunday on the groundwork being laid by the parties in preparation for a likely hung parliament after the next election. Late in his piece, Rentoul say that "In any case, neither Labour nor the Tories are likely to offer the Lib Dems the starting price for any deal, namely electoral reform." As evidence that neither party will offer this, Rentoul cites the review of voting systems, saying:
Hardly noticed two weeks ago was the publication of a Government review of voting systems in the UK, which concluded that the present system for the House of Commons should not change. It left open the possibility of looking at the issue again when House of Lords reform is completed. That is, on the 12th of Never.
Rentoul's statement is half wrong and half right. Since it came out weeks ago, we at MVC have stressed that the review did NOT conclude that the present system for the House of Commons should not change. Rather, the review presented the benefits and flaws of several different voting systems, but never did it actually make a conclusion stating one would work better to elect MPs than any other. However, Rentoul is right that our government refuses to truly consider electoral reform and the benefits it would bring to this country's politics(case in point being the government spin press release on the review saying that no voting system change was needed.)
Monday morning musings
Posted by malcolmclark on February 04, 2008 | Comments (2)
Twelve days on from the publication of the review of electoral systems, and it seems to me there are two very different dynamics at play:
It isn't just that turkeys aren't going to vote for Christmas, it's also they are not even going to discuss the matter or decide to take a vote on it in the first place.
vs.
With recent events and scandals, the list of things affecting an MP's employment which are either being put under close scrutiny or being taken from their direct control is growing fast. From party funding and appointments, to salaries and expenses, the direction of travel is obvious. So it seems only a matter of time before people start to really question why MPs still maintain absolute control over the system that gets them into power in the first place and gives many of them jobs for life.
Who's afraid of electoral reform?
Posted by malcolmclark on February 04, 2008 | Comments (0)
Jean Lambert, Green MEP and MVC management committee member, writes in The New Statesman about the review of electoral systems and where we go from here.
Lord Hunt skewered on his own petard
Posted by malcolmclark on January 31, 2008 | Comments (1)
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, responding on behalf of the Government yesterday to a question in the Lords about the review of electoral systems, said:
"My Lords, it is certainly a report for anoraks. It is objective and does not make value judgments; it merely goes through the experiences of the devolved countries and the London and European elections. It is helpful in terms of the wider debate on systems of election more generally, and I hope noble Lords will read it."
Durr! The only reason why this is a report for anoraks is because the Government has made it so - taking a very academic approach to the subject and not bothering to go out and involve the public. No wonder it is such a dry "A-level essay or undergaduate dissertation" as Simon Hughes has pointed out. So if the responses they are getting can be classified as nerdy or anoraky, the Government has only itself to blame. If they were serious about wanting a debate and to make good value of the £30,000 it has cost them to publish the review, they would actually go off and start initiating some meaningful public dialogue and debate on the issue of elections from the voters' perspective. Then again, that is precisely what they want to avoid. So this 'anoraky'ness suits their purpose well. Just rather hypocritical of the Lord Hunt and his colleagues to claim otherwise.
More review critique/ open the debate of electoral systems to the electorate
Posted by joshloewenstein on January 30, 2008 | Comments (0)
ERS Campaign's Officer Michael Calderbank published articles in both the Compass and Progress criticizing our government's biased response to the review on electoral systems ("the current system for UK general elections works well"-Michael Wills) when findings from the review clearly suggest that a form of proportional representation might be better. It is dissapointing as it is not surprising that a government would back a system by which it gained majority power on just 35% of the vote and with the support of only 1 in 5 of eligible voters. Worse though is the government's failure to widen the scope of the debate over electoral reform, mainly by not incorporating the public's views on electoral systems into the review, but also by by not allowing for Parliamentry debate over its findings. Calderbank argues that it is time for the government to open up the debate and make sure the voices of the voters do not continue to go unheard.
So did they deliver? Well, apart from the limitations of any "desk-bound" review, the content of the Review can be broadly welcomed as far it goes. The evidence complied by civil servants in the MoJ suggests that the PR systems all give fairer outcomes and have a greater tendency to allow all votes to count (as opposed to the millions of wasted/tactical votes under the First-Past-the-Post system). Some allow voters significantly greater choice. The new systems are encouraging greater representation of women and voters are "warming" to the experience of coalition. It also explodes some common myths put about by advocates of the status quo. It finds that there is no evidence to suggest that PR systems lead to weak government and alternative systems are no more inherently confusing to the voters. Plus, whilst as it correctly observes it cannot be automatically assumed that there is a direct causal relationship between moving to a PR system and increased turnout, nevertheless international comparisons suggest that turnout that it is on average at least 5% higher in countries with fairer methods of electing their representatives.
So far, so good. Unfortunately, whilst claiming that the Review is part of an "ongoing debate", the government appears to be doing nothing to actively widen the scope of the debate to canvass the views of ordinary voters, still less to bring forward proposals which would empower voters to determine what changes might be necessary. Despite being covered in the "Governance of Britain" branding, there are clearly no plans to use the review as the basis for engaging with citizens about how we are to achieve the "new type of politics" that Gordon Brown has spoken of. The failure to give any government time over to the Parliamentary debate to the Reviews findings shows how little they are keen to open the electoral system to any kind of public scrutiny this side of a General Election.
The Spin on the Review
Posted by joshloewenstein on January 30, 2008 | Comments (0)
STV Action's take on the government's review of electoral systems further emphasises what we have been saying all along: that the government’s conclusive reaction to the inconclusive findings of the review(particularly that of Michael Wills, who said, “We [have] the firm belief that the current voting system for UK general elections works well.�) reeks of political spin.
In the words of STV action:
The context is that the Government’s interpretation and conclusions are what we sadly have come to expect of our politicians – distorted, biassed and motivated by short-term political self-interest. First Past The Post put the present Government into power with only 35% of the votes, so why should the Government support reform?
The Report (by unbiassed civil servants) states: “One of the main benefits of PR, and in particular STV, is that voters have a greater degree of choice in elections and a greater chance of their vote counting in terms of who gets elected.� (Para 6.169).
This alone, even putting aside the greater efficiency and fairness of proportionality, is reason enough for us to demand STV. Despite this, the Minister of State, Michael Willis (who has a vested political interest in First Past The Post), had the nerve to say:
“The current voting system for UK general elections works well� and “At this point, it would be premature to seek to reform the electoral system for the Commons while the voting system for a reformed and substantially or fully elected House of Lords is still to be determined.�
“Why?�, we ask. Why would it be premature? Might it be that Labour still hopes to win another overall majority in the Commons at the next general election for a minority of votes in the country? Might reform suddenly become urgent if Labour fails to secure an overall majority and needs Lib Dem support?
Proportion and Democracy
Posted by joshloewenstein on January 30, 2008 | Comments (0)
The government's review of electoral systems released last Thursday revealed that First Past the Post is the least proportional of all electoral systems that have been used in the UK. James Ball of the Guardian argues that voting system that is not proportional is not only inadequate but "cannot be deemed democratic.� Ball blames the inequities of First Past the Post for the sleaziness and corruption surrounding UK politics and believes the only way to begin rectifying these problems is to change the voting system. Here are his key points:
The Westminster model encourages a two-party system. The need to get an absolute majority in a constituency to get even a single seat in Westminster makes breaking through into parliament a near-impossibility for smaller parties. Even the Liberal Democrats, who get around 20% of the vote each election, receive only 10% of seats. Labour and the Conservatives are left to duke it out for the majority of votes.
Changing the voting system to a proportional representation model would allow for more parties to enter Westminster, just as we see in the Welsh and Scottish assemblies. Coalitions become a much more significant part of government, which allows each party to set out a distinctive set of policies, even if compromise will eventually be required in parliament.
Reforming Westminster's antiquated and undemocratic voting system would benefit everyone except the two major political parties who maintain a political cartel over government. Reform is a traditional hobbyhorse of the Liberal Democrats, who have the most to gain in the short run, but electoral reform has more to offer than merely upping their vote share.
If politicians truly want an end to the sleazy, scandal driven politics they are so keen to blame the media for, then changing the voting system is their best chance. But will they have the courage to keep their promises on reform? I wouldn't hold your breath.
Brown sleeps while democracy suffers
Posted by malcolmclark on January 27, 2008 | Comments (1)
It is nice to know that a better night's sleep for our Prime Minister and his new chief-of-staff is rated as more important than checking whether voters are happy with the way politics is operating and how their representatives are elected.
This from the Sunday Herald:
Parking any Commons decision on the introduction of ID cards until after the next election, which was quietly leaked last week, means Carter's in-tray looks better than it did. Brown's chief of staff will also be sleeping better knowing that reform of elections to the Commons has also been kicked into the long grass, with any review of electoral systems now placed beyond 2010.
Lib Dem response to review
Posted by joshloewenstein on January 24, 2008 | Comments (1)
In a press release, Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg expressed his disappointment with the lack of conclusions drawn by the MOJ's review of electoral systems.
"As anti-climaxes go this is going to take some beating. It takes a peculiar kind of genius for ministers to spend a decade deciding what to do with our voting system before reaching the conclusion that we should wait a bit longer. Our political system is broken, but the Government seems happy to let it stay that way. Both the Labour and Conservative parties are happy to talk about getting people involved in politics but refuse to tackle the fundamental issue of electoral reform. That is why I have asked Gordon Brown and David Cameron to join me in a constitutional convention so we can begin to deliver the change that the British people deserve."
Mr. Clegg will be even more distressed to note that the MOJ is now spinning the results of the review to say that our current system works well and that the debate on PR and electoral reform is now closed. Clegg is right that First Past the Post is not working and that our government seems content to let it stay that way.
Who says spin is dead?
Posted by malcolmclark on January 24, 2008 | Comments (0)
Time for a game of spot the difference:
Here's the Ministerial Statement on the publication of the review, from this morning:
This Review provides a summary of the experiences of the new voting systems introduced over the past decade and on that basis sets out the advantages and disadvantages associated with each. It uses a range of commonly accepted criteria for assessing the experience of the new voting systems. These include the degree of proportionality under different systems, the impact on voters in terms of the choices available, voter turnout rates, the impact on political campaigning, social representation, government formation and administration of elections under different systems.
The Review is intended to inform the ongoing debate about the voting system in Westminster but does not make any recommendations.
It remains the Government's strong view that since the voting system for Westminster Commons elections could fundamentally change the way parliamentary democracy operates, any proposed changes would need to be endorsed by a referendum.
And here's the press release the Ministry of Justice put out, also this morning, which stated that the review finds that:
- there is no clear causal relationship between proportional representation and a range of desirable outcomes; - the new voting systems have led to more proportional allocation of seats in devolved administrations, which has resulted in more parties being represented in the elected bodies and given rise to a tendency towards coalition government; - it has not been the experience of the UK that voter participation has risen with the introduction of proportional systems, although there is some evidence that proportional systems have a marginally higher turnout internationally; - positive action policies have a greater impact on increasing women's representation than more proportional voting systems; - there has been little change to party campaigning, with continued emphasis on winning constituency seats; - changes to voting systems require significant research, planning and testing to ensure voters understand the system and can use their vote.
Now it would seem to me that the tone is much stronger and more negative about PR in the press release. I have so far struggled to find the evidence or quotes in the report that back up the media release. Nor Michael Wills' comment in the release that "We [have] the firm belief that the current voting system for UK general elections works well". If that was the case, why would the Government have proposed a Speakers Conference to address problems with participation and turnout in Commons elections?
Opinions of the Review 2: Labour should support STV
Posted by joshloewenstein on January 24, 2008 | Comments (0)
Alex Hilton wrote on his Labourhome blog that it is time for Labour to take the lead on electoral reform. Hilton will not accept a form of PR "hashed out in a back room over three days negotiation, after a tense election" as a reform that will benefit Britain. Rather, he argues that Labour must take the lead on this issue instead of "horse-trading with the LibDems in secret," if only to show the public that electoral reform is being made for the right reasons. To best do this, Hilton calls for a system of STV which would have the following benefits:
1. More voters' votes would contribute to elected politicians' majorities - and therefore, those politicians would be more accountable to their voters.2.The constituency link would be protected.
3.Backbench MPs would motivated to raise their performance.
4.Representation of women could increase while abolishing all-women shortlists.
Here is Hilton's reasoning for how STV would bring these changes about.
The system I propose would involve merging three-seat clusters and having each of these large constituencies elect three MPs instead of one; and electing them by Single Transferrable Vote rather than by First Past The Post; just as was used in Labour's deputy leadership election.
The STV element ensures that people's votes really do count, making a fairer system and allowing smaller parties a better chance, particularly if an incumbent party has acted with arrogance.
The constituency link would be protected. Although the constituencies would be larger and each party would pick three candidates, the parties would not choose the order of those candidates.
In multi-member constituencies by STV, there would be very few safe seats and in most constituencies, a lazy or unpopular politician could find themselves easily ousted by an opposition MP or even by one of their own party. Voters would benefit from the competition and sometimes co-operation between three MPs.
AWS would be abolished while providing for greater representation of women. Labour could insist on target seats having two women candidates of three yet still allow a space for one man. There could also be an insistence that all Labour slates include at least one woman. If we were daring, we could pass a law ensuring that all parties' slates contain at least one woman and one man.
My proposal would link the best of PR with the best of the current system, and be entirely focused on empowering voters. Making politicians more accountable will make government better and there will be no more MPs who can take their seats for granted.
Opinions of the Review 1
Posted by joshloewenstein on January 24, 2008 | Comments (0)
BBC Political correspondent Ben Wright responded to the review by outlining the debate surrounding electoral reform. Among the key issues discussed are swing votes, coalition governments, and partisan advantage. The Jenkins Report and the Electoral Reform Society are also briefly mentioned. Some key points:
Various systems of PR are now used in elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh, London and Northern Ireland assemblies as well as in European elections. And the consequences are clear, most obviously in Wales and Scotland where there have been no outright majorities since 1999.
Some feel their votes don't count under the current system Coalitions and minority government have become the norm. So would it work for Westminster? Reviews and analysis pile up but in the end it's up to the government to make a call.
The former health secretary Patricia Hewitt has long argued for reform and senses there is "growing support" in government for what's called the Alternative Vote system, where candidates are ranked in order of preference. It's not PR, but it's a change. "A referendum on a reformed voting system.. would be a terrific move" for Gordon Brown to take, she said.
A hung parliament at the next election now looks a distinct possibility and a deal on introducing a reformed voting system could be the price the Liberal Democrats extract from a potential coalition partner.
The Tories are certainly suspicious of Labour's motives.Nick Herbert, their Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "We reject the approach which Labour has taken, which is to raise this issue, to toy with these alternatives systems only when it suits them and for partisan electoral advantage."
Labour has flirted with PR for years. But if the next election is a close-run thing, it might be the Liberal Democrats who force the party to commit.
Review is Published
Posted by malcolmclark on January 24, 2008 | Comments (0)
At last. Review has been published. Read the written ministerial statement from this morning. And read the report.
More soon. Got some reading to do ......
Update:
(from the MoJ press release) The review finds that:
there is no clear causal relationship between proportional representation and a range of desirable outcomes;
the new voting systems have led to more proportional allocation of seats in devolved administrations, which has resulted in more parties being represented in the elected bodies and given rise to a tendency towards coalition government;
it has not been the experience of the UK that voter participation has risen with the introduction of proportional systems, although there is some evidence that proportional systems have a marginally higher turnout internationally;
positive action policies have a greater impact on increasing women's representation than more proportional voting systems;
there has been little change to party campaigning, with continued emphasis on winning constituency seats;
changes to voting systems require significant research, planning and testing to ensure voters understand the system and can use their vote.
Countdown to publication - the wait is almost over
Posted by malcolmclark on January 23, 2008 | Comments (0)
We are now expecting publication of the Government's review of electoral systems this Thursday morning (24 Jan). We are unsure at this moment whether there will be an oral ministerial statement in the House at 11.30am, or whether there will just be a written statement released.
ERS has produced a good pre-publication briefing, which gives the context for the review and what we are about to read. There's also a shorter 2 page summary version here .
It will be interesting to see if the review ends up being a little more favourable and constructive than we were initially expecting, possibly in part due to changed political circumstances and the need for Brown to actively keep all options open ahead of what might be a hung parliament after the next election. If that was the case, it would be better if the ground was prepared in advance, by conducting a proper public debate over the coming year(s) and actually addressing the issue from the voters' perspective. Certainly the question to be asked of the Government is how are they going to take the issue forward, and how will the findings of the review feed into the Ministry of Justice's ongoing Governance of Britain consultation and wider efforts to re-engage people into the political process?
May Christmas be coming 340-odd days early?
Posted by malcolmclark on January 21, 2008 | Comments (3)
"Lib Dems may be offered PR as part of power-sharing deal" is the title of a piece by Colin Brown in today's Independent ahead of the publication of the Government's review of electoral systems. While not actually expecting much at all from the review in terms of recommendations or even judgements on the way we elect MPs, there are hints, as in this article, that the Government may be prepared to say a little bit more than the nothing we had been led to believe. Political circumstances and the realities of a possible hung parliament perhaps are helping to move things along. We of course won't hold our breath - either waiting for publication or what is in it. But at least here is a positive start to the week:
Gordon Brown will extend an olive branch to the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg this week by setting out options for replacing the first-past-the-post voting with a fairer system for Westminster elections. The publication of a government paper on proportional representation by Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, is seen by senior cabinet ministers as a move to prepare Labour for power-sharing with the Liberal Democrats if there is a hung parliament after the next election.
Mr Straw will not set out any hard proposals, but it is known he favours the additional vote system, which he introduced for elections to the European Parliament when he was Home Secretary. "Jack would support AV, if there is a hung Parliament," said a senior minister. "It could be discussed after the next election."
Being part of the "Democracy isn't Deskbound" campaign launch
Posted by joshloewenstein on January 14, 2008 | Comments (0)
Today, Malcolm, I and 12 MVC supporters stood on college green outside Westminster holding placards reading "Make My Vote Count", "Democracy isn't Deskbound" and "Publish...and give voters their say" behind a desk with a ballot box bound to its top. Despite potential setbacks i.e. the rain, the police (who gave Malcolm a hard time throughout the entire stunt) and a gust of wind so strong it caused the desk to collapse (luckily just after we had finished), the event carried on and was a success. The fact that 12 supporters were willing to brave the rain and wind in the early morning shows that electoral reform is an important issue for many. It is a clear sign to the ministry of justice that the review of electoral systems needs to be released soon and that its results must be used to find a fairer and more representative voting system. Be sure to check out the blog/website in the near future for pictures from today's event and for more information on the "Democracy isn't Deskbound" campaign and the release of the voting systems review.
MoJ starts consulting on Governance of Britain
Posted by malcolmclark on December 14, 2007 | Comments (1)
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
Lords Questions on Speaker's Conference
Posted by malcolmclark on October 18, 2007 | Comments (1)
This from Monday's proceedings in the Lords, courtesy of Hansard:
Speaker’s Conference: Voting Systems
Baroness Thomas of Winchester asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether the proposed Speaker’s Conference will include consideration of the outcome of the review of voting systems.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the terms of reference for the proposed Speaker’s Conference have not yet been agreed with the Speaker. It is anticipated that the review of voting systems will be completed by the end of this year, at which point Ministers will decide the next appropriate steps.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. I am encouraged that the agenda has not yet been set entirely. Will he press for voting reform for Westminster to be included as a vital part of the conference? After all, the Prime Minister has said that he wants a national debate about strengthening our democracy. If voting reform is left out of the Speaker’s Conference it will be the elephant in the room.
15 Oct 2007 : Column 527
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I first congratulate the noble Baroness on her birthday today. I am afraid that I have to disappoint her. I am not prepared to press in the direction that she has suggested. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that he wishes the Speaker’s Conference to be concerned with issues to do with the decline in turnout. I do not think that it should be distracted by going down the cul-de-sac suggested by the noble Baroness.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, will the Speaker’s Conference be able to look at the review of the Scottish elections? This House was promised that the reports on those elections would be available during the Recess but, as of last Thursday, they did not appear to be available to anyone.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Gould review is undertaking a look at the experience of the elections in Scotland. My understanding is that it is due for publication shortly, but I do not have a definitive date. I am sure that it will prove of great interest to all of us.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for not giving a birthday present to the noble Baroness. I tell my noble friend, the noble Baroness and her colleagues that the introduction of proportional representation in Scotland has been an absolute tragedy. We have seen chaos, confusion and cuts. At local government level, we see the Liberal Democrats in an unholy alliance with the Scottish National Party. Will my noble friend assure us that, because of this experience, we will stick to the tried and tested system of first past the post, which has given us stability in this country for decades and centuries?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with what my noble friend has to say. However, the Scottish system cannot be so bad given that it managed to elect him.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am tempted to ask the noble Lord exactly what voting system the Government would have liked for the election that they never called, but that might be unfair. Instead, I should like to ask another question. Rather than fiddling around with adjustments to the voting system, might the Government do some work to root out the corruption that has crept into the electoral system encouraged by their desperation to increase voting? As a result, all that they have done is increase the number of people voting who should not have voted at all.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government have taken significant steps in recent years to tighten up on the security of the electoral process. Those measures were established by the Electoral Administration Act 2006 and we will keep them under review. I have no doubt that in the reviews we have heard about today we will continue to make sure that the election system is as scrutinised and secure as possible.
15 Oct 2007 : Column 528
Lord Rennard: My Lords, if the Government are concerned about low voter turnout, does the Minister not consider that the Speaker’s Conference should address the problem that all political parties are encouraged to direct their resources to a small number of voters who are considered to be floating in a minority of constituencies that are deemed to be marginal, thereby excluding many voters from their attention during the campaign? If the Government are concerned about corruption within the electoral process, should they not be concerned that this system of concentrating on floating voters in marginal constituencies means that a very rich man—perhaps someone like the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft—may consider that he can buy one, two or more constituencies in the same way that constituencies in rotten boroughs were purchased a few centuries ago?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I can see why the noble Lord wants a change in the electoral system, but we should not be talking about party interest. The question is: what is the best interest for the public? I am sure that if the Speaker’s Conference looks at turnout, it will come through with some very interesting points. I have not seen hard evidence to suggest that a change in voting system would increase turnout. Further, one of the great advantages of the first past the post system is that it puts extremist parties at a great disadvantage. There is a close relationship between the Member of Parliament and the electorate. We would have to think very carefully before we went down the path that the noble Lord suggests.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, has the Minister given—and will the Speaker’s Conference give—any thought to how elections to this House might take place?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there are as many ideas about electoral systems as there are about reform of your Lordships' House. The White Paper that led to the votes in the House and the other place in the spring discussed voting systems. I assure the noble Lord that, as we take forward discussions on reform of your Lordships' House, the question of which voting system is to be adopted will be given careful consideration.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Speaker’s Conference of 1965 considered the single transferable vote on a motion put to it by me, but that the record of those proceedings is not in the Libraries of either House of Parliament? Would he cause inquiries to be made of libraries around the country so that at least those who are considering the matter currently would have the benefit of the 1965 considerations?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there will be queues outside the library at Kings Heath when we make sure that the information is available. I shall certainly take that point. My understanding is that at that Speaker’s Conference the Government accepted 60 of the 71 recommendations made.
Michael Wills on the electoral review
Posted by malcolmclark on September 18, 2007 | Comments (2)
What have we learnt from today's 'You and Yours' Radio 4 special on constitutional reform? Here are a few things that Michael Wills said:
"We have undertaken an extensive and intensive review (of those new electoral systems). That review will be published by the end of the year and then let's have a discussion."
"The final version of the draft is still actually being written"
"We have implemented different systems - we have continued to examine the case. It is not a buried issue ... it is a live issue. We will publish the report by the end of the year. There will be a discussion. We will then continue to look at the issue."
MVC has a series of questions following on from these comments:
1) Has that "extensive and intensive" research for the review included any contact with voters or directly sought their opinions?
2) Will the review include voters' experiences of the recent set of Scottish and Welsh elections, and the impact for parties and voters of the first set of Scottish local elections under Single Transferable Vote this May?
3) Once the review is published, how is the Government proposing to run the discussion and intitiate a meaningful discussion with voters, which will properly feed back into the policy process?
4) If the Government are serious about political re-engagement and encouraging interest in elections, would it not be better to give the Speaker’s Conference a chance to examine all relevant issues, including the impact of our current electoral system?
Many of the callers to the programme and even the presenters picked up that the Government is refusing to address the core issues, including electoral reform. It should certainly be part of the re-engagement debate and we - and many others as well - believe that it should form part of the solution too.
Leaky review not going to close down debate
Posted by malcolmclark on August 23, 2007 | Comments (1)
Monday's Times included a story about the government's review of electoral systems, based on a leaked copy of the report. The newspaper took a disappointingly negative tone to its reporting and especially in its leader piece. The only person they seem to quote is Nick Herbert, Conservative Shadow Justice Minister, who unsurprisingly spins it in as anti-PR way as possible.
Electoral Reform Society and Conservative Action for Electoral Reform have responded, with a press release and with letters to the Times. Stay tuned for MVC's response.
We have to continue pushing for the report to be published, made widely available, and for a debate to be encouraged and conducted in public, with as much chance for input by voters as possible.
