Tag Archives: Electoral Reform

What do you do about corrupt MEPs? Openness is vital, but give voters more choice as well

Since news broke on Sunday that three MEPs – Zoran Thaler, Ernst Strasser and Adrian Severin – were prepared to accept money in return for tabling amendments to legislation, I’ve been trying to work out what conclusions to draw from all of this. You can read more on the ongoing investigations and fallout from Parliament Magazine and the FT, and Reuters has an interesting, more detailed piece on lobbying the EP.

It’s clear to me that what the MEPs did was wrong and corrupt, and that they should resign, but as far as I am concerned this is just the start. Alarmingly Severin, as quoted by Parliament Magazine in an earlier article, stated “I didn’t do anything that was, let’s say, illegal or against any normal behaviour we have here” and while he has been kicked out of the S&D Group in the Parliament he still has not resigned.

Continue reading →

Email This Post Print This Post

How the current ‘debate’ about election reform is giving precisely the opposite of a principled outcome

So wrangles about how and when to hold a referendum on the future of the UK’s election system rumble on… and how messy the whole thing gets.

The only given is that there will be a referendum sometime in this parliament – it’s in the coalition deal. So even if some people have the incentive to stop even that I won’t go into that issue.

What do the Tories want? They do not want AV because they think it will not benefit them. They do want a reduction in the number of seats (from 650 to 600) because that will assist them as city seats will be reduced. They want seat boundaries decided according to numbers on the electoral register, not numbers eligible to be on the register, because numbers on the register already are higher in their areas of support. Finally they do not want the referendum on 1st May 2011 as a higher turnout, especially in Scotland and Wales, will assist the Yes side.

What does Labour want? They mildly want AV as it might favour them, and will not favour the Tories. They do not want a reduction in the number of seats. Boundaries decided according to numbers eligible to be on the electoral register would assist Labour as younger voters and ethnic minorities are more likely to vote Labour and numbers on the register now are lowest among those groups. 1st May 2011 for the referendum is OK as it might assist the Yes side, and Labour is moderately in favour of AV.

What do the Lib Dems want? They strongly want AV as election reform has been a core party policy for as long as anyone can remember. They have argued for a reduction in the number of seats to reduce waste, and as they get some support in rural areas it might benefit them electorally too. It’s unclear what their position on the electoral register issue would be – here the Tories seem to be in the driving seat. They want the referendum to be on 1st May because that will boost turnout, and that will assist the Yes side.

What a mess! That’s no way to reform an electoral system…

How would it look if you applied some principles to it, rather than electoral advantage?

For a start you would not bundle the issue of the system and the number of seats together – those would be split as they are two separate issues. So the question would be posed as to what the system would be, and then the second question on whether the number of MPs should be reduced.

The clear, principled position is that everyone’s vote should count equally and that poor levels of electoral registration need to be addressed – so equal sized constituencies on the basis of population eligible to be on the register, not actual numbers on it now, is clearly the principled approach. Same for the referendum date – it should not be 1st May 2011 as this would boost turnout unequally across the country as not all of the country has local or Assembly / Parliament elections at that time.

So – on principle – you should have a referendum with two questions, constituencies on the basis of population eligible to be on the register, and a referendum date that’s not 1st May.

As it stands at the moment we’re going to get precisely the opposite – one question on AV and a seat reduction in the bill, constituency sizes on the basis of those on the register, and a referendum on 1st May 2011.

Email This Post Print This Post

Now is always the wrong time for opponents of electoral reform

picture-14As the initial anger about MPs expenses starts to subside a little, so proposals for more radical changes to British politics emerge as means to restore public confidence in the system. Alan Johnson has backed calls for a referendum on proportional representation, and Ed Miliband has spoken of ‘major reforms’ at Hay (his ideas do however sound rather woolly to me).

Tom Harris then comes out with the traditional line from opponents of any sort of radical reform of the system – it’s not about any principle or not, but now is always the wrong time to speak about these sorts of issues.

The research from the Mark Reckons blog is the best example of why these issues are linked – MPs in safe seats have been profiting more from the expenses system than others have.

Lest we forget, some of the most interesting constitutional changes in the last century have been born out of times of considerable upheaval – the German Grundgesetz and the South African Constitution being the prime examples. MPs expenses are nothing in comparison to the end of WWII or the end of apartheid.

Secondly, Harris – like so many politicians – falls into the trap of assuming that politicians have to necessarily lead the process to draft some sort of new constitutional settlement. They speak and write ready to deal with the Daily Mail critique before it has even been penned by that rag’s editors.

It is not beyond the possibilities for a country with the wealth, resources and traditions of the UK to conduct some proper country-wide consultations over the course of a period of months or years to come up with a proper settlement between people and parties.

The problem for Harris (and others such as Jack Straw) is that there is some sort of thought that there’s a way to return to the halcyon days of bi-partisan politics in Westminster, where men of honour fight out the major battles of our time.

No. That time is over. We have a more fractured politics, less deferential, with multiple cleavages and many levels of governance. The creaking British constitutional settlement – thankfully exposed by the expenses scandals – is ripe for reform. And if not now, when?

[UPDATE 26.05.09]
Now David Cameron has added to the debate, promising what The Guardian calls ‘the most dramatic redistribution of power in living memory’. Obviously our living memory is rather short these days, not stretching back to the late 1990s and devolution. For Cameron’s ideas are really rather weedy. Fixed term parliaments, more free votes, MPs to choose chairs of select committees, a more open legislative process, and some vague stuff about local government ‘competence’. Bla, bla, bla. Why did The Guardian even give it space on its front page?

Email This Post Print This Post