Wednesday 29 July 2015

House of Lords reform leads the road to other areas of constitutional debate

The resignation of Labour peer Lord Sewel following allegations of both drug taking and involvements with prostitutes, has reopened debate over the future of the UK's second chamber of parliament, which has never been accountable to the electorate.

So what are the alternatives, and do we even need a second chamber?  I am not sure that everyone would agree that to fix it, you simply have the whole damn place elected and it is problem solved.  Indeed, one Liberal Democrat peer has suggested we could potentially scrap a second chamber completely, if the House of Commons were to be significantly expanded.  There are all sorts of questions.

For instance, Britain's general elections struggle to get massive turnouts compared to other major democracies.  This is in part due to the discredited First Past The Post/Winner Takes All voting system.  So on that note, it is hardly likely that First Past The Post elections for a second chamber would inspire huge public interest either.

Could we have a second chamber elected on a more proportional system, as assemblies in London, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland do?  As one party would be unlikely to ever have an overall majority by itself, and as each member would be accountable to the electorate, I would certainly be in favour, at least in principle.

Prime Minister Dave (and no doubt any mid-term Tory successor) would I am sure want to avoid this Proportional Representation (PR) path.  Along with sections of the opposition Labour Party, David Cameron is not in favour of allowing each British citizen a fair vote at general elections. 

What many Tories and Labourites alike want is to retain the status quo that is First Past The Post, which presents them with the best chance of forming a single party government.  On that note, I have no doubt they would be reluctant for the people to get to know a proportional system better, and appreciate the merits of PR.

Another route of Lords reform to go down would be to follow the example of Germany's Bundesrat, which is not directly elected.  Each German region (or lander) sends representatives who are members of the regional governments. 

As England currently does not have regional assemblies, this kind of path could reopen another debate.  Although I would personally favour regional assemblies, some people would no doubt be quick to point out that the North-East decisively rejected devolution in 2004. 

In a previous debate with a good friend who has a different view to myself on this issue, I have suggested that the House of Commons could in part be reduced in size to accommodate this extra layer in government.  My friend was of the view that the public finances were not sound for doing this.

In terms of numbers, I will introduce an interesting comparison.  Britain's House of Lords has about 800 members, which will probably only get bigger under the current arrangements, as the current Prime Minister and future PMs continue to appoint new allies as members of the club.  Although Germany may well have this extra layer of government that is regional assemblies, it's Bundesrat only has 69 members!

The one thing that is clear to myself regards the future of Britain's second chamber is that reform of the House of Lords is not an issue all on it's own.  As I have pointed out here, the pathways of Lords reform lead into other constitutional issues and debates.  The main question now is how long the current government will try and duck the issue?


 

Wednesday 22 July 2015

Blair's biggest domestic policy mistake!

Having swept to power in 1997 with a wave of euphoria after what some people would call 18 years of Tory misrule, the then Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair set up the Jenkins Commission to take a look at possible reform of Britain's voting system.  When the commission delivered it's report in September 1998, the recommendation was for a proportional system known as Alternative Vote Plus (AV Plus).

AV Plus is similar to the type of Mixed Member Proportional system (MMP) I personally favour at present as an alternative to First Past The Post (FPTP).  I have given a simple explanation on how this type of system works in my post on 5 July 2015.

Although Labour's 1997 general election manifesto did state a commitment to hold a referendum on the House of Commons voting system following a commission report, the pledge was never honoured.  Instead, Blair's Labour opted to stick with the FPTP system, which went on to give Labour a second majority of above 160 in 2001.

Fast forward to today, and Mr Blair has come out to warn his party against electing Jeremy Corbyn as leader and lurching to the left.  I do fully agree that such a move would make Labour unelectable, just as moves to the left have done so in the past. 

As a centre-ground voter unattached to any party, the only motive I would possibly have to vote for a hard left-wing Labour Party would be tactical, in a hope that my vote would help to deliver a hung parliament to undermine the so called benefits of FPTP.  I certainly would not be voting Labour in the hope of Britain electing a Corbyn majority government!

It is because Tony Blair consigned the Jenkins Report to the dustbin that Labour are now facing this predicament that Corbyn could win.  It is true that had FPTP been replaced, Labour would have almost certainly been in coalition if subsequent elections had been held under a system of Proportional Representation. 

I believe a coalition with another centre-ground or centre-left party (such as the Liberal Democrats) would have ensured that Labour would have not lost a great deal of economic credibility on the run up to the 2010 general election.  I also believe the unwise rise in public borrowing would not have been sanctioned had Gordon Brown (Blair's successor) been running a coalition government. 

Even if Labour had still left government following an election around 2010, I am pretty sure they would have been in better shape subsequently in opposition.  A Proportional Representation system would anchor Labour into the centre-ground of British Politics.  Putting it very simply, the need to work with other parties would see Labour contribute to policies which are more representative of the will of the people.

By sticking with FPTP, Tony Blair showed that he was more interested in self-service rather than public service.  In other words, it was more important to look after the party's own interest than give people a fairer voting system.  With the latest polling amongst Labour members showing that Mr Corbyn is leading the race to be Labour leader, I believe the turkeys have come home to roost for Mr Blair!

If Labour do ultimately reject Mr Corbyn, they do need to reflect on the lucky escape it would be.  If Labour is serious about showing that they are looking to connect with the people, they do now need to think very seriously about adopting electoral reform.  After all, a lack of fairness in voting is very much why there are many people out there who are disenfranchised with politics itself.


 

Dear constituents of Gideon's Tatton,

Let me introduce myself.  My name is Andy, and I am a blogger with a passion for electoral reform. 

Many of you will take pride in being the parliamentary constituency of the sitting Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to mention George (Gideon) Osborne's Conservative majority in the Tatton constituency increasing from five years ago at May's general election.

My politics are very much on the centre ground.  Of the five general elections I have been eligible to vote in, I have voted Conservative on the one occasion.  That was my first general election in 1997, when Tony Blair came to power in a landslide victory for Labour.  I am sure some of you will remember that election very well.  It was a rarity, due to being the only occasion since the Tatton constituency was created in which a Conservative MP was not returned.

I have my reasons for not voting Conservative since the late nineties.  I will add that I consider it unlikely that I will vote for the Tories again in the foreseeable future.  However, for as long as I remain officially unattached to any political party, the only people I will ever rule out voting for completely are fascists and non-democrats.

As much as you may take satisfaction in the Tory majority increasing, I do believe you also need to take a look at the future of democracy in the UK, and the role of safe Conservative seats like Tatton.  The circumstances in which Neil Hamilton (following his implication in the Cash for Questions Scandal) was defeated by the Independent Martin Bell in 1997, were very much a one off.

The second Tony Blair Labour landslide of 2001 has shown that Tatton will always be true blue Tory territory, apart from the odd blip as 1997 was.  This one horse race in Tatton makes voters in this seat amongst the least powerful voters in the UK. 

Let's take a look at the constituency whose boundaries I currently reside in, which has seen a change of winning party twice over the last 23 years.  Why should voters like myself in Warrington South be more powerful than you?

First Past The Post is now a flawed electoral system, in an era which now sees less people vote for either of the two main parties.  Of all democratic systems, First Past The Post provides the least representative government. 

The 2015 General Election has seen a single party gain a parliamentary majority on about 37% share of the vote.  Furthermore, the current electoral map shows that safe Tory seats like Tatton (as well as safe Labour seats) are playing their part in dividing Britain! 

Electoral Reform is an issue which will now just not go away.  More and more Brits can see the First Past The Post fault lines.  Do you have the courage to challenge this discredited electoral system?  If you wish to engage with myself, you can do so on twitter, @AndyWatson75.

Best wishes

Andy J Watson

Sunday 19 July 2015

Can Tim Farron adopt a different approach to Lib Dem electoral reform policy?

Having defeated Norman Lamb to become leader by a decisive margin, Tim Farron has the task of rebuilding Britain's Liberal Democrats.  May's election saw the Lib Dems go from a party in government with 57 MPs to a return to the opposition benches with just 8 MPs.

What the recent election in Britain has also done is to highlight a range of problems with the First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system.  Whilst the Liberal Democrats have in the past been the party most associated with moves to get rid of FPTP, May's election also saw a disproportionate return of 1 MP each for both the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and the Green Party, despite both parties combined polling of over 5 million votes.

Now that both UKIP and the Greens are making their views known on the unfairness of FPTP in a way not seen before, I believe the Lib Dems need to work with both parties on the issue, whenever possible.  It is working together with different parties which is very often a product of Proportional Representation, despite policy differences.

Whilst there may well be significant policy differences with UKIP in particular, this is the chance for the Lib Dems to show that support for Proportional Representation (PR) is not merely about self-interest.  After all, it would probably have been UKIP who would have found themselves in the best position to become a junior coalition government partner, had May's election been held under a PR system.

The Lib Dems have consistently supported a particular PR system known as the Single Transferable Vote (STV).  This is a system which has MPs elected in multi-member constituencies, and which voters rank preferences between candidates of different parties.  The voter can rank as many candidates, or as few as they like.

STV does indeed have advantages.  For instance, it clearly retains a constituency link.  Also, a sitting MP could be defeated by a party colleague.  Although I can see such benefits of STV, I am at present leaning more towards another PR system known as Mixed Member PR (MMP) as I indicated in my post on 5 July 2015.

MMP involves each voter having 2 votes.  With one vote, a voter will vote for a party.  All votes received by a particular party in a region will determine how many seats that particular party will get for that region, directly in line with share of the regional vote.  The other vote is used to vote for the local MP in a constituency, just as British voters do at present.  My post on 5 July does give a simple explanation on how MMP works.

MMP is used in Germany.  Very simply, as Germany has had generally more economic success over the past 70 years, we are talking about a system with a track record of contributing to a successful country.  A form of MMP is known to be the favoured system of Canada's centre-left New Democratic Party (NDP), who could come to power for the first time in Canada's election later this year.

To get the best chance of getting rid of FPTP, Britain needs a united desire between the Liberal Democrats and the other pro-electoral reform parties.  My view on MMP as a replacement to FPTP is just one viewpoint, and a viewpoint which could still change over time to prefer STV, or perhaps another PR system. 

I hope Tim Farron recognises it is important to not only co-operate with the other pro-electoral reform parties in moves to get rid of FPTP, but to also listen to the wider public for their views on what electoral system should eventually replace FPTP.

 

Monday 13 July 2015

The English Language should be renamed to move with the 21st Century

English is an official language in more countries than any other language.  I am English, and I do fully embrace the history of the language's origins being in England. 

What is also so factual regards the world we live in today is that because English is spoken by other influential nations (such as the US and Australia) as a main official language, we Brits don't own the language.

English is also spoken as a second language by many countries.  When a major official from the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries are featured in interviews on news programmes, it is very rare that such interviews are not conducted in English.  It is also very rare that the official from one of these countries does not speak very fluent English. 

Of course, there are other examples of such countries apart from the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries, in which English is widely spoken as a strong second language.

The United Kingdom has other native languages in addition to English.  I would heartily suggest that Cornish, Welsh, and Scottish Gaelic are also very much a part of the fabric of the land.  The same as well to the languages of the various immigrant communities.

Britain has many historical achievements.  However, Britain also has the odd thing to be ashamed of as well.  For me, the old empire is top of that list, and it is also the principal reason English is the official language in more sovereign states than any other language.

As we don't own the language, the name English needs to be dropped to show the world that we Brits don't believe that we have some kind of superiority complex.  I believe a debate should now ensue over creating a more globally appreciative name.


 

Thursday 9 July 2015

Sunday Retail Trading Consultation needs family safeguards

Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne has produced a new post-election budget, the first all-Tory budget in the UK for over 18 years.  One particular announcement concerns a consultation over Sunday trading hours.  It may well be that local authorities will be given the power to decide if they want to have longer Sunday trading hours in their own areas.

The announcement appears to have split major retailers.  Some of them consider it to be vital in order to compete with internet traders, whilst other major retailers also have smaller convenience stores which can stay open longer anyway under current rules.  These same retailers with concerns feel the current laws work just fine, and have concerns over staff costs which a longer Sunday operation would entail.

If this is to be a matter devolved for local authorities, then I would suspect that some areas will go with longer Sunday trading, whilst others won't.  For those instances of local authorities embracing the longer trading hours, family safeguards will be an absolute necessity.

We do live in changing times.  These are times in which many people don't work the old traditional hours any longer.  What is unlikely to change though is that children will still go to school Monday to Friday.  I would be very surprised if children start having to go into school on a rota anytime soon!

Any workers with children should be given safeguards which I feel should mean they do not have to work more than every other weekend day.  For me, even workers without children should be given consideration in some circumstances. 

What if someone's partner works Monday to Friday, whilst that same somebody is compelled to work every weekend?  Would such a couple be reasonably expected to just have a day off together when one of them takes a day's holiday?  Not really fair that, is it?

Sunday 5 July 2015

My Electoral Reform passion, inspired by German influences

My Electoral Reform passion

I am passionate to see Britain replace it's current First Past The Post electoral system with a more proportional system.  I believe more voters will be heard, and that less votes will be wasted.

There are of course several different models of Proportional Representation (PR), and since Britain went to the polls nearly two months ago to produce a most disproportionate general election result, I have been taking some time looking at a some of these models.

I very much doubt for instance that I would be upset if Britain were to adopt the Single Transferable Vote system, following a future consultation.  This is a proportional system which returns multiple representatives in large electoral districts, and which considers voter preferences.  It is also the system used in the Republic of Ireland.

My leanings at present are though moving more towards what is known as Mixed Member PR (or MMP).  Different variations of MMP are used in Germany and New Zealand.  Under this type of system a voter would have 2 votes, and parties would roughly earn a number of seats in line with share of the vote earned. 

MMP explained

For a simple example, we will look at the fictitious region of Cazza-Matta, which contains 20 parliamentary seats. 

For the first vote, the voter will vote for the party of their choice.  This vote will determine how many seats a party in Cazza-Matta will win in line with their share of the vote in the region.  So if the Andy Watto Sing Along Party wins 40% of the vote in Cazza-Matta, then the Andy Watto Sing Along Party will win 8 seats.  It is as simple as that!

We will come back to the role of the first vote in a moment.  For now, we will move onto the second vote.  This vote will be used to vote for a local candidate to represent the voter's local constituency, just as one does currently under the First Past The Post system.  Half of the region's 20 seats will be constituency seats.  The Andy Watto Sing Along Party wins 5 of the 10 constituencies.

So now we move back to the first vote, which is used to determine proportionality.  With the Andy Watto Sing Along Party entitled to 8 seats across the whole region, the party will win 3 further seats from what is known as a regional top up list to add to the 5 seats already won in the constituencies.  And the process will continue for Cazza-Matta's other parties.

This kind of system will not only be fair to the voter, but it will also give the voter more choice.  If the voter is not particularly fond of the MP in their local constituency, then they could also choose to take an issue to any of their regional MPs.

My admiration of Germany

It is my admiration of Germany which is at present moving my leanings in the direction of the PR system I favour.  As a football fan, I like the German football club ownership model which ensures a club must have 50% plus one shares held by it's fans in a co-operative.  Dare I confess I also have a little soft spot for the German national football team.  Of course, I am naturally pleased that England's Women beat Germany 1-0 last night to secure 3rd place in the Women's World Cup.

The admiration I have for Germany goes way beyond the football field.  They have been slightly better than us Brits in various economic measures since the end of World War II.  Considering that the election of parliamentary representatives does underpin every policy area, there can be little doubt that Germany's Mixed Member Proportional system has of course played it's part.

A simple comparison of representative government

This year Britain voted in a Conservative majority government with nearly 51% of the House of Commons seats, on just 36.9% of the vote.  Compare that to the German Federal Election of 2009, which saw a Christian Democrats/Free Democrats coalition government being formed with a combined share of 53% of the seats in the Bundestag, on a combined share of 48.4% of the vote.

This next comparison is more significant.  In 1997, Britain's Labour Party won 63% of the House of Commons seats, with just a little over 43% of the vote.  When Germany went to the polls the following year, a Social Democrat/Green Coalition was formed with both parties winning a combined share of 51.5% of Bundestag seats on a combined vote share of 47.6%.

What is also worth highlighting is that Germany tends to get a higher voter turnout on General Election day, compared to us Brits.

A proposed amendment to the German Model

I would personally prefer that the vote in constituencies was to be done by the Alternative Vote system (AV, or Ranked Ballots as North Americans would say).  This would mean that voters can rank candidates to be their local MP in order of preference.  This is the only tweak I would make.

The principle of AV is that when every vote is initially counted on first preference votes, it is established if the candidate with the most votes has 50% of the support in the constituency.  If they don't, then the bottom placed candidate is eliminated, and that candidate's first preference votes would be re-distributed amongst second preference candidates.  This process continues until one candidate has reached 50% of the vote.

I am mindful (having spoken to my father) that some people reading this may feel this may be too confusing and too much change for the voter.  The point about AV is that a voter can rank as many or as few candidates as they want.  Therefore, if someone only wished to vote for one candidate in a constituency, then they can do just that.

I have also considered that even if the constituency element of MMP was kept as First Past The Post, the regional top up list would restore proportionality anyway.  However, there are a couple of reasons why I would use AV for the constituency element.  Firstly, it will enable voters of minor parties the right to express their true political preference, in a contest that their preferred candidate is unlikely to win, without wasting their vote entirely.  Secondly, it would enable independent candidates (who would be unable to appear on regional party lists) a fairer chance of winning a constituency seat.

Above all else, any confusion over change would be overcome with time, especially if MMP (with AV being used for constituency votes) were to become the normal British electoral system, for all types of election.

Don't you always get coalition governments with PR systems?

More often than not you do.  However, suggestions that you generally get no coalitions in the UK, are not quite true.  Britain's system two party dominated system has produced two parties which I would argue are coalitions anyway. 

There has down the years been the odd left-wing Tory and right-wing Labourite alike who have crossed the floor into the other party.  The reason is simply that many people on the Labour Right and Conservative Left sometimes have more in common with each other than with others in their own respective parties. 

Besides, electing a national parliament and government should be very much about reflecting different views, as opposed to being like a knockout football tournament which culminates in the main event as just between two teams.