Make My Vote Count

The campaign for voter choice and a more representative parliament

 Skip navigation

reviving local politics
Cllr. Steve Munby

Local government and local democracy in the UK are in a poor state. Despite a raft of government initiatives to change the way local councils work and increase voter turnout, pervasive cynicism is the dominant mood. Elected Mayors, new Cabinet models for local councils and electoral pilots have failed to re-engage public interest. There is a strong sense that power has moved elsewhere: to central government, Europe, individual consumers, quangos or private capital. Repeated government announcements of a devolution of power to the local level are perceived and experienced as decidedly double edged. With every new pot of money comes new conditions - a complex regulatory structure - frequently incomprehensible to senior officers and councillors, never mind the general public. Confidence in the commitment, competence and relevance of local councils and councillors is pretty low.

The increased turnout of 35% in recent local elections was welcome, but only shows how far there is to go. Indeed it is reasonable to assume that a major factor in increased turnout and a relatively good showing by Labour was the fear provoked by Le Pen's vote in France and the media coverage of the BNP. What contribution can electoral reform make to renewing local democracy and effective local government? It would be foolish to pretend that electoral reform is the solution, but I believe it is a key factor in changing the way local politics functions and re-engaging the public. To consider how electoral reform could contribute we need to look at the key problems, how voting reform could address them and the kind of electoral system which could do that.

It is a nearly inevitable consequence of first past the post that electoral competition is narrowed down to a small number of wards at a local level and particular social groups. Those whom political parties fail to engage are liable to opt out of the political system, which tends to mean poorer sections of the population and the more affluent. The consequences of both are serious. The former has been more frequently addressed, but the failure to engage with the affluent can have equally serious consequences, particularly for the left and communities in poverty. Indifference to local politics is coupled with disengagement from local services and reinforces trends to privatisation and social segregation in residence, schools and use of public space.

If only a minority of seats are liable to change hands in elections, it is scarcely an inducement to councillors to actively engage with local citizens. Indeed the argument that local electoral deserts foster corruption and complacency is one of the most powerful arguments for electoral reform in local government. This argument has been well rehearsed by electoral reformers and in my view is unanswerable. I want to approach the problem from a different angle as a councillor who represents an electoral desert in a constituency which is an electoral desert. The ward I represent, Abercromby, has one of the lowest turnouts in the country and the constituency, Liverpool Riverside, the lowest turnout at the last General Election. Despite this I would claim, at the risk of sounding smug and complacent, that the councillors in our ward are extremely hard-working and in close contact with the people we represent. Our local MP, Louise Ellman enjoys a high profile in the city, is extremely accessible to constituents and widely respected and liked. But it doesn't make people turn out to vote for us.

"Wayne" is in his early 20s, a member of a local Partnership Board and active in a residents group in the ward looking at how planning issues affect local people. They meet every Tuesday night and I sometimes join them for a drink afterwards for a chat. A few weeks ago he told me that he had never voted in his life. I, and some of the others round the table, had a go at him over it. I told him that I was personally hurt and asked him what he thought of me and my fellow councillors. He replied, and I'm pretty sure he was being absolutely straight, that he thought we were all really good councillors and he had loads of time for us. He just didn't see the point in voting. We'd get elected anyway. Older people voted. It didn't concern him.

Powerlessness is an important ingredient in disengagement from local politics. Successive governments, including New Labour, have both absorbed too much power to the centre and ceded too much to the market, the private sector and unelected quangos. But power exists in different forms. Strong power, however much governments or multinationals may wish to cling on to it, is vulnerable to a wide range of unpredictable forces. As strong power erodes, weak power assumes a more crucial role in governance. Credibility - the claim to speak on behalf of people - and connexity - the capacity to link into complex networks of communication, ideas and influence - is increasingly crucial. Local councillors can play a crucial role as political entrepreneurs in coordinating diverse forces. This depends on political intelligence, creativity and commitment, but none of this carries much clout without an effective electoral mandate. If the electoral system creates a situation where Labour councillors representing communities in poverty are elected on a low turnout, our credibility to fight our constituents' corner is fatally undermined.

Political leadership matters and can make a difference. But increasingly public policy is framed and shaped in managerial not political terms. First past the post means that the decision on who is your councillor is decided for most people by the party not the public. The mandate comes from the party, not the people. People aren't soft and as a result, voters and public service managers are encouraged to treat the majority of councillors with contempt. They don't matter. They have no mandate. This in turn creates a poverty of aspiration among voters, party members and councillors. If you're not a senior figure you don't matter. Why on earth bother to stand for the council? The result is disengagement from voters and party members. It's just not worth the time.

Electoral reform is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the renewal of local politics, but it couldn't half make a difference! Serious electoral competition between the major parties in all wards would radically increase political participation. Most voters are lucky if two parties in their ward take local elections seriously. The first major contribution of electoral reform in local government would be to increase the incidence of competition to cover the majority of wards. The need for major parties to win votes across the Council area would force them to step up the level of campaigning in all wards to a minimum where election addresses are distributed, some canvassing takes place and the electors are at least made aware that an election is taking place. Now many people may not thank us for the extra attention from parties and politicians, but on this point I have to follow my friend Ronnie's precept on raffles. Ronnie used to run a regular fund-raising raffle on the building sites he worked on. There was one fellow who always refused to buy a ticket, but Ronnie made a point of always asking him. When others suggested to him that this was a waste of time Ronnie's response was "At least he can't say he hasn't been asked!" If we don't take elections seriously, why on earth should the electorate?

But electoral reform could and should widen political participation in other ways:

  • It should broaden the political spectrum beyond the deadening contest for the centre to create new openings on the left for green, socialist and other radical groups. As a Labour Councillor I don't fear that competition. It puts the Labour Party in a position to take on board these concerns and gives voice to an important part of the political spectrum.
     
  • It should widen competition and choice within parties, allowing different kinds of candidate and different political trends to surface and compete for representation.
     
  • It could break the relative monopoly of parties on politics. I remain a 'party' man. If they didn't exist they'd have to be invented. I've spent most of my adult life active in political parties and social movements and by and large believe the former are more appropriate vehicles for electoral politics. But non-party movements can be a vital corrective if the political system is going stale and permeability to movements in civil society should be a key feature of local electoral systems.
     
  • It should increase choice within wards. At present one party is likely to have all the councillors in one ward, except in the minority of 'battleground' seats. A different electoral system would increase the degree of pluralism at a ward level. This is likely to be good for the electors and the councillors. The former are more likely to have at least one representative who shares their views and they feel comfortable with, the latter are more likely to pull their finger out and act to represent their ward, not just the party.
     
  • It should improve the performance of councillors generally by allowing competition between and within parties at ward and city level. If the electoral system introduced means that electors can rank candidates, councillors are under greater pressure to be known to their electorate and seen to get results. Again this is good for both.

One common objection to electoral reform is that it opens up electoral space to extremist groups. The recent vote for Le Pen has been cited on numerous occasions as a fatal blow to electoral reformers. There is a 'hard' and a 'soft' response to this. The hard answer, which electoral reformers shouldn't run away from, is that if people want to vote for politicians and parties we loathe and detest and get them elected, then democracy should mean they are able to do so. People should be able to vote for racists and fascists if they want to. No ifs, no buts, no avoiding it. The soft argument is that extremists are less likely to succeed in a well- functioning democracy with a fair voting system. The BNP got in on first past the post. The reason they got in was not some surge in support for the far right. Despite increased turnout, voters in Burnley were obviously unenthused by mainstream parties. The political system had failed to involve people, allowing the BNP to get in on the votes of a small proportion of the electorate. A fairer voting system at a local level could contribute to, but not ensure, the revival of local politics which can push groups like the BNP to the margins.

So what kind of electoral system do we need for local councils? Let us agree on the kinds of elections we want locally and then discuss the technicalities of what could best deliver it. The ingredients are clear:

  • It should increase the element of competition in every ward;
     
  • It should encourage competition within parties (no top down party list systems - let voters choose between candidates);
     
  • It should allow for ward representation, complemented by councillors elected city-wide - to increase proportionality and diversity.
     
  • It should be as proportional as possible, without losing the previous elements.

These changes have implications for political parties and would almost certainly require a shift to one member, one vote for candidate selection; serious moves to broaden the parties base by introducing new categories of registered voters/supporters; improved funding via the state to resource the new pressures they would put on party organisations. There will be and is resistance to change from some councillors and party activists. But the case for change, the need to renew local politics and revive political parties is unanswerable. Electoral reform is a key element in this. I believe the party memberships and the broader electorate would support and understand this case. Activists and councillors can choose to lead or follow.