Here’s the text of an article on the need for constitutional reform that the Guardian have kindly published today:
Parliamentary democracy is on its knees. Lachrymose MPs haunt the corridors of power in a collective despondency that disables us from agreeing the comprehensive changes that are necessary. The rupture at the core of British democracy can only be healed with a radical programme of constitutional reform, reinforced by the authority of the people in a referendum.
This is the moment for sweeping, radical change – an elected House of Lords, weekend voting and devolution of power out of Whitehall and into local communities. But there is one change that would make perhaps the most difference: how we actually vote and send people to parliament. I believe the alternative vote system will help rebuild the trust and authority given to our elected representatives. And if the European election results show mainstream parties one thing, it is that the democratic status quo is no longer an option.
During the first parliament of this government, I ran the campaign for first past the post from the offices of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union. Our campaign was based on a passionate belief that a new voting system would lead to more control over the candidate selection process by political elites – harming the prospect for working class representatives.
Labour’s first term in office was characterised by a paradoxical approach to political power. On one hand there was the biggest redistribution of power for a century through devolution and a bill of rights. Yet there was also a huge consolidation of political control of the Labour party machine tothe centre. Many believed the party was run from 10 Downing Street. Intoxicated by the euphoria of Labour in power, different strands of representation in the party – my union included – let this happen.
The more I became a willing participant in Labour’s efforts to prove the iron law of oligarchy, the more trenchant I became in the view that if working people were to retain a voice in parliament, the current system of first past the post should be defended. It was the one issue on which my union completely disagreed with the then prime minister, Tony Blair. The vehemence with which we held our views led, in part, to proposals for electoral reform being held up for a decade.
Yet for the current system there is now a more important challenge, one that has led me to fundamentally reassess my views. Vast swaths of working people in Britain now think parliament is irrelevant to them and their families. MP Jon Cruddas is right when he says that this is as much about policy as it is our democratic framework. But he is also right to say that we can no longer ignore the institutions of representation when it comes to re-engaging working people.
Our voting system is the source code of the power wielded by MPs. It bestows the authority of the people on their representatives. Yet few MPs can claim support from more than 50% of their electors. AV enables preference (ranked) voting, ensuring an MP can claim authority of a majority of their voters. AV also allows voters to protest – through the support of small and single-issue groups, while also choosing to support a larger party, if they so wish. Unlike some other voting systems, it allows the retention of a geographic link between MP and electors.
Though Westminster watchers often overlook this relationship, most MPs believe that the responsibility to be a local area advocate is what keeps a system rooted in common sense. Many MPs who currently support first past the post do so because they want to retain a local link. I believe that when they explore the merits of AV more fully, they will reassured that this important element of our democracy will be preserved.
Changing the voting system is not the only solution to parliament’s waning authority. I recently left the daily grind of ministerial life having had 18 months immersed in conversation with the UK’s digital pioneers. I’m convinced that our economic future is dependent on developing a set of economic and regulatory arrangements to hothouse our digital natives – the under-30s for whom the internet is not a new technology.I hope to spend my time on the backbenches arguing for a digitally enabled democracy. There are technologies that did not exist when Labour was elected in 1997, that if adopted, will allow a new Speaker to lead parliament into a new age of transparency and accountability.
This will pose a huge threat to the vested interests in the political parties, civil service and government. But it will also offer opportunities. The recent blitzkrieg attack on the PM, by the loudest liberal voices around the editorial table of the Guardian, will have less significance when our elected representatives can make their case using their own publishing platform, be it blogs, message boards or even Twitter.
But the centrepiece of a new reform act should be a change in voting system and a move to elect our second chamber. And legitimacy should be conferred on these changes through a plebiscite.
9 comments ↓
I agree that some kind of voting / parliamentary reform is necessary to get people to re-engage with politics (instead of seeing politicians as mostly a necessary evil at best). Of course, it doesn’t help the ‘democratic’ idea when seemingly half the cabinet (and or associated ‘tsars’ and ‘advisors’) are entirely unelected…
And legitimacy should be conferred on these changes through a plebiscite.
And the same should be true for all bills.
Why should it just be that MPs want to legitimise their power, and not have the public legitimise their decisions?
The answer is clear. They want to give the illusion of power to the electorate, and in reality keep power to themselves.
It’s just rearranging the deck chairs in the house of conmen.
Nick
AV+ (the system recommended by Roy Jenkins in 1998) would have given Labour a greater number of seats if applied to the 2005 General Election results (i.e. an even less proportional result).
Clearly a less proportional system of election is not going to placate the public, nor the opposition parties, nor any objective sense of what a proper PR system should be.
Additional Member System or Single Transferrable Vote are the only realistic PR systems in my humble opinion. Out of those two, I’d prefer AMS because it does (to some extent) focus on the regions.
I’d highly recommend anyone interested in the subject read the Governance of Britain paper on the topic: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/voting-systems-review-1.pdf
I have two points to make – the first about how we should think through changes to our voting system, the second about the lack of constituency representation at Westminster.
The cornerstone of our thinking about how to improve the voting system should be our conception of what we think democracy should be. Do we want a democracy in which different views are considered and a compromise negotiated? Do we want a democracy where the will of the majority trumps that of the minority? Do we want a democracy where people have as much control over their lives as possible? These are the sort of questions which must be addressed prior to thinking about what kind of electoral system we want at the core of our democracy. The debate about the voting system is premature, we must first debate the essence of what our democracy should be.
“Though Westminster watchers often overlook this relationship, most MPs believe that the responsibility to be a local area advocate is what keeps a system rooted in common sense.”
But I am sceptical about the strength of this link. As you know, what happens at Westminster at the moment is that MPs represent specific constituents to specific government departments or agencies with regard to specific issues. Constituents aren’t really represented in your voting because the party whip largely dictates which way you vote. Basically the constituency is only represented in the way you vote in so far as a plurality voted Labour – that is massively indirect link. If we change our democratic system, a priority should be to strengthen the link between MPs and their constituencies.
In 45 years of campaining not one single person has mentioned PR to me on the doorstep. When will you guys realise that people are interested in outcomes not processes. And shite outcomes = shite results as we saw last week. If you want better results adopt the list of policies I posted 3 months ago.
And of course nobody in the Party was interested in the voting system when we had 100-plus majorities. Utterly cynical and an attempt to make it look like Gordon is “doing something”.
The canter of the lemmings continues.
Tom
Good to see the conversation in the “motherland” focus on electoral reform. There is a lot to be said for the Australian system of a lower house elected on a single member transferrable vote and an upper house with multi-member electorates (our States) with a transferrable vote (the system we know and love as Hare-Clarke). They certainly both provide the outcomes you seek in terms of providing a meaningful choice without a wasted vote.
There is another Australian quirk you could add – compulsory voting. The theoretical basis is that it delegitimises a “protest vote” of not voting – if you have to vote for someone you might as well organise yourself to provide someone worth voting for.
It is also incredibly logical that you introduce your electoral laws in a form of Act that has a manner and form constraint hat it can only ber amnded by referendum, and that therefore it should be dependent on a referendum for its initial enactment.
I would, however, counsel against the direct democracy solution of plebicites on matters other than those that create the foundations of Government – just look at the mess that is California!
While you are at it you could go the whle hog and get a fully written constitution. They work.
You have to be worried when a deeply unpopular government starts wondering about the voting system. This has to be left for another day.
The only time reform for a voting system should be allowed is while a governing party enjoys a massive majority such as that in 1997. That is the only fair way to do this. Clutching at Straws will get Labour no friends
I believe strongly in proportional representation but I welcome the emerging movement for AV in our party. Many of us will still want to go further, but AV represents a significant democratic advance to making every vote count.
It’s a very dated, and unfair system. Basically stating that 5’000 people’s votes in some rural village in dorset, are equal to 100’000 people’s in central Birmingham
The tories don’t want change as they’d struggle to win any election, if it was “one person, one vote”.
Leave a Comment