"Delving further into reasons for non-voting, we come up with explanations that can be helpful in informing the forthcoming campaign. Those who choose not to vote, our 'voluntary abstainers', do so because they are distrustful of politics, are critical of the European Union, or are just not interested in politics. Women abstainers, though, were considerably less likely to be interested in politics, and in the European elections, than men.

The issue of the public dis-trusting politics and political representatives speaks of a loss of communication between the public and representatives. It is a matter of particular concern for the European Parliament, when, as the only popularly elected European body, it is returned on a shrinking voter base. Euroskepticism is a legitimate political position to hold, and so parties with that outlook need to work on turning critical non-voters into critical voters.

Disinterest in politics, which women are more likely than men to profess, is something that can be turned around. But in countries where women comprised around one-third of the candidates, there was a higher level of political interest, and voter turnout, among women. The obvious solution presents itself: have more women contest the European elections. Other studies also show that the more women candidates there are in an election, the higher the level of interest among women in that context. And the more women candidates there are, the more women are likely to vote."

Tuesday 14 October, 6.30pm, House of Commons

This year marks the 80th anniversary of universal suffrage, but only one in five MPs is a woman. What is more, women consistently say they are less interested in and less knowledgeable about politics than men. Why is this and should we be concerned?

What can be done to engage women in politics more effectively?

Chair: Dr Sarah Childs (Bristol University)
Panel: Helen Goodman MP (Deputy Leader, House of Commons), Lee Chalmers (The Downing Street Project), Dr Jonathan Dean (LSE)

RSVP online.

"Has Brown just signalled his preference for keeping an appointed element to the Lords? That is my take on his move earlier today to give a peerage to Sir Mark Malloch Brown so he could be appointed to the post of minister for Africa, Asia and the UN. And they may be more of that tomorrow, when the full list of ministers is announced.

"One could argue that by definition bringing in 'all the talents' means having the scope to bring in people from outside politics into government positions, and under our system the only way of doing that is to appoint them to the Lords. The only other - much riskier - way would be to try to parachute them into safe seats when the opportunity (such as the forthcoming two by-elections) arises. So unless Brown is going for one last, grand, use of these patronage powers before he reforms the Lords and makes it completely elected, we may be looking at a hybrid House after all."

"I don't want to be Prime Minister of just England. I want to be Prime Minister of all the United Kingdom."

Fair sentiment perhaps. But in one sense that could be a real hostage to fortune. Wales, yes, the Tories might make electoral inroads come 2010 and gain a reasonable number of seats; though nowhere near a majority. But Scotland, that's just not going to happen. The Tories will be lucky to gain a few seats; still leaving them in the low-mid single figures. And even in England there will still be large swathes of the country - key metropolitan areas, the NE, student towns - where the Tories have minimal representation.

The wonders of First-Past-the-Post means none of this matters in terms of getting an overall parliamentary majority. Gordon Brown is PM of the UK despite the Conservatives being the most popular party in England in 2005. But it does have implications in terms of connections with the whole electorate, accountability and representation.

Norman Lamb, LibDem frontbench spokesman on Health, stated publicly last night what most senior LibDems think: that the Alternative Vote would be an electoral reform compromise worth having.

Peter Hain was running late for the event, but he had a good opening line: "I am sorry for being late. But before I came here, I thought I had better go and give a speech on electoral reform." This generated a hearty cheer from Lamb on the platform, as well as applause and laughter from much (if not all) of the audience. To which Hain said: "But wait until you hear what it was. I am for the Alternative Vote - and not for proportional representation." To which Lamb shouted: "We'll take that. We'll take that" from the platform."

Sunder then provides onteh blog some good analysis of the exchange:

This has long been the perfectly sensible position of most of the LibDem frontbench, though they may have difficulties convincing their party that AV is a step in the right direction if the holy grail of STV can not be gained. Still, the LibDem position is irrelevant without a Labour move on electoral reform. There is a pretty strong Labour consensus for the Alternative Vote among many of the advocates for PR (such as John Denham), long-standing PR opponents such as Jack Straw, and others like Ed Balls who had seemed somewhat agnostic on the constitutional enthusiasms of both sides of this debate.

Tony Blair failed with his Lab-Lib agenda. Gordon Brown missed a massive opportunity last summer to pursue this reform agenda from a position of strength (when I was among those pushing the argument). Its much harder to do it in the current political climate (even if, ironically AV would not do anything in the short-term for Labour at current levels of unpopularity, though might well help the reluctant LibDems to defend against the Tories). But the deal that could be done is pretty clear. And it is one that all of those who muse about a "progressive consensus" and a "progressive century" may regret passing on, for a very long time to come.

h/t to Cromsworldnews for drawing my attention to Sunder's post.

The sub-headline is "many in the party now regret the failure to create a parliament that better reflects election results" which I think accurately sums up the mood I experienced at Conference.

Madeleine writes:

"As economic confidence has ebbed over the past week, there's a sense of an era drawing to a close. And with that comes a reckoning of what's been achieved and what opportunities have been missed. It's a conversation which looks back not forward: what we have done, what the Tories didn't do, rather than what we are going to do. It's a dangerous symptom of the fatalism which several fringe speakers such as the outspoken MP Fiona Mactaggart are warning against.

But however dangerous the reckoning, it throws an interesting light on New Labour. So into the balance go the much cited achievements in early years provision. Also winning credit are Labour's reforms on the constitution, praised by political historian David Marquand during the party conference as perhaps the most significant of any government in several centuries: devolution, the human rights act, directly elected mayors, some Lords reform.

But set against these historic achievements comes the bitterness of opportunities missed. The one which is already haunting the Labour party is that they should have gone for electoral reform when they had the chance. If they had fulfilled their 1997 manifesto commitment, they could have truly transformed British political culture. But with the hubris of big majorities, they binned the commitment, complacently assuming they could carry on winning with first past the post. Now, as they stare crushing defeat in the face, they feel keenly the wisdom of their own argument in past years: that big majorities are not just bad for democracy – because they don't represent accurately the country's vote – but they are bad for the party, falsely bolstering a supremacy which can dramatically disintegrate.

There is a strong inclination, as Peter Hain and Mactaggart suggested in Manchester, for a last minute dash. Get some measure of electoral reform – any type will do – in place now before it is too late. There is the sharp realisation that if Brown had gone to the country a year ago with a manifesto commitment to electoral reform, Labour could have been in power for another decade. The fear is that this is the missed chance which will loom over the years in opposition.that huge ambition was probably within their grasp at key moments through their past decade in power but it slipped between their fingers."

Worthwhile, yes. Necessary, probably. Sending good signals about moving this country's constitution into the 20th century (yes I do mean 20th rather than 21st), absolutely. Going to empower citizens (umm I mean subjects!) or rebuild trust and interest in electoral/party politics, no. Not at all.

My own take is that the Government is doing this because it is an easy to understand reform; is potentially easy to achieve; gets good newspaper headlines; and avoids having to tackle any of the more controversial or difficult constitutional issues that would take up political and legislative time and will.

When I heard him in the hall in Manchester little more than 24 hours ago, I had hoped Brown's "new settlement for new times" included bringing our democracy into the 21st century.

Or maybe I am being too negative. Maybe actually this is only the start of a deeper reforming agenda. Maybe. Just maybe. One man who may hold the key to that is Wilf Stevenson, the prime minister's new adviser on the constitution. Mr Stevenson is a former director of the British Film Institute, and a long-time friend of Gordon Brown - since university days in fact. Until recently he was the director of think tank, the Smith Institute. I have no ideas about his views on electoral reform, but I'm sure someone will fill me in shortly on that.

This is MVC's fringe at labour conference, tonight (sunday 21) at 8pm, at the Arora Hotel, 20 Princess Street, Manchester.

So what is it about? What debate are we trying to achieve?

There are twin dynamics at work currently, and for much of the past decade:

1) Labour retreat - losing members and voters, targeting ever smaller
numbers of people and geographic areas

2) voter disengagement and disatisfaction with the way politics works

We need to look at how we can expand the electoral map again: make people feel they are relevant and listened to, compete for votes in many more areas, (and this is for labour but it applies to other parties too) build up the party base and become a truly national party, especially in terms of representation, again.

Away from the academic, desk-bound Government reviews and proposed technocratic or 'sticky plaster' fixes, there are practical solutions, tested in parts of the UK / world, which might help to boost party activity and to re-engage voters with electoral politics.

The idea of this fringe is to explore some of these strategies, hearing from people who have been at the coal-face of their implementation and/or experienced how they have operated in their native land, and see what can usefully be applied to this country, and to Westminster in particular.

This isn't a dragon's den 'in or out', 'either or' situation. Some of the ideas which will be put forward by our speakers are complementary and could be introduced together, or cherry-picked for a constitutional reform package. Others involve more of a choice between them. But hopefully the ideas put forward will trigger further discussion and debate, both at this Conference and after.

Here's the line up:

JAG SINGH (MESSAGESPACE)
‘50 State Strategy’ - on lessons from the Obama and Clinton campaigns.

PAUL SMITH (AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY ABROAD)
‘Playing by Aussie Rules’ - on a broad constitutional reform package

JENNETTE ARNOLD AM (CHAIR OF THE LONDON ASSEMBLY)
‘Londoners Votes Counted’ - reflections on increased diversity, turnout and party activism.

STEPHEN PURCELL (LEADER OF GLASGOW COUNCIL)
‘Scottish Local Government Experience’ - on offering choice and strengthening connections with voters.

The event is chaired by Stephen Twigg. It is open to all, and is followed by a reception at 9.30pm.

"Rwanda will be the first country where women will outnumber men in parliament, preliminary election results show. Women have taken 44 out of 80 seats so far and the number could rise if three seats reserved for the disabled and youth representatives go to females. Rwanda, whose post-genocide constitution ensures a 30% quota for female MPs, already held the record for the most women in parliament."

"these are races that so are uncompetitive that one party or the other didn't even bother to run a candidate. Sometimes these districts so heavily tilted one way or the other that one of the parties can't find anybody willing to put in the effort. Inner cities with large black majorities tend not to be prime hunting grounds for Republicans and rural areas where everybody hunts are not always Democrat friendly. In some cases the district has been gerrymandered to achieve its balance, but not always."

So as we spare a thought for their constituents, who are denied - partly by effects of the electoral system - the chance to have a menaingful say on their representative, here are the lucky congressmen and women:

AR-01 Marion Berry*
AR-02 Vic Snyder*
AR-03 John Boozman*
AR-04 Mike Ross*
FL-03 Corrine Brown*
FL-17 Kendrick Meek*
FL-20 Debbie Wasserman-Schultz*
GA-04 Hank Johnson*
GA-05 John Lewis*
IL-02 Jesse Jackson, Jr.*
IL-04 Luis Gutierrez*
IL-07 Danny Davis*
IL-17 Philip Hare*
MI-14 John Conyers*
MN-08 James Oberstar*
MO-01 William Clay, Jr.*
NY-06 Gregory Meeks*
NY-09 Anthony Weiner*
OR-04 Peter DeFazio*
PA-12 John Murtha*
PA-14 Michael Doyle*
TN-06 Bart Gordon*
TN-08 John Tanner*
TN-09 Steve Cohen*
TX-01 Louie Gohmert*
TX-02 Ted Poe*
TX-05 Jeb Hensarling*
TX-11 Mike Conaway*
TX-21 Lamar Smith*
VA-03 Robert Scott*
VA-09 Rick Boucher*
VT-AL Peter Welch*
WI-04 Gwen Moore*
WI-05 Jim Sensenbrenner*
WV-01 Alan Mollohan*

"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?

Also been running a stall at the conference these past few days. My thanks to Rob for taking charge of it.

"The PM, elected in 2006, has complained that parliament is deadlocked. The vote will be Canada's third national election in four years"