Brown ponders voting referendum on poll day
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
A referendum to change Britain's first-past-the-post voting system could be held on the same day as the general election next spring, under proposals being discussed by ministers.
The idea is gaining support in the Cabinet, and Labour now looks certain to fight the next election on a firm commitment to scrap the current voting system.
Although ministers have ruled out a switch to the fully proportional system sought by the Liberal Democrats, they plan to allow voters to list candidates in order of preference, with the bottom candidate dropping out until one contender enjoys more than 50 per cent support.
This Australian-style alternative vote (AV) system is one leading option. Another is "AV-plus", recommended by an inquiry chaired by the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead in 1998 but left on the shelf by the Blair government, which commissioned it. This would also see the election of "top-up" MPs in proportion to the votes cast.
The Government's Democratic Renewal Council, chaired by Gordon Brown, met this week. Although no final decision was taken, The Independent has learnt that the options it is considering include:
* Rushing through legislation before the election to allow a referendum on electoral reform shortly afterwards;
* A polling day referendum on the principle of changing the system, to be followed by a second plebiscite if there were a "yes" vote;
* A polling day referendum on a switch to AV or "AV plus", to be implemented at the following general election;
* A Labour manifesto commitment to change the system if the party retains power.
One cabinet source said: "The idea of a referendum on election day is on the agenda. It is a very live issue."
Yesterday, senior Labour figures denied that the move was a desperate attempt to cling on to power by muddying the waters at the election and pitching for the votes of people who support reform.
"People have a way of getting the government they want," one Labour source said. "It could easily go the other way – voters might be more likely to vote against a proposal made by the government of the day."
The driving force for the last-minute push by Labour after 12 years in power is the expenses controversy. The party's internal polls show it remains a huge issue for the public.
"Two things matter on the doorsteps: the economy and expenses," one Labour adviser said last night. "The expenses row means people are not listening to us on the economy. So we have to try to restore trust, and one way is to change a discredited voting system."
The Tories strongly oppose electoral reform, and are bound to accuse Labour of "moving the goalposts" and trying to curry favour with the Liberal Democrats in case there is a hung parliament.
Tories point to a YouGov survey for the Electoral Reform Society which found that, among people intending to vote Liberal Democrat, 9 per cent say a referendum would make them "much more likely" to vote Labour and 21 per cent "somewhat more likely" to do so. Only 4 per cent would be deterred.
Even if the public voted for reform in an election-day referendum, a Cameron government would be unlikely to act on it. Similarly, if legislation were forced through calling for a post-election referendum, it could be overturned by an incoming Tory administration.
Labour officials say that raising the issue could allow the party to portray Mr Cameron as "anti-reform". There is frustration in Labour circles that the Tory leader has appeared to outflank the Government by responding quickly during the expenses saga.
Many Labour MPs oppose reform and grassroots activists who want to keep the present system are calling for a debate on the issue at the party's annual conference in Brighton this month.
Electoral reform: The options
The Alternative Vote (AV)
Instead of voting for one candidate, people can rank the candidates in order of preference. The candidate coming last drops out and second preferences are redistributed until one candidate enjoys more than 50 per cent. Retains link between MPs and their constituents. Used in Australia.
AV Plus
People would have two votes – one for constituency MP (as under AV) and one for a top-up list in 65 areas in England, eight in Scotland, four in Wales and two in Northern Ireland. Some 80 to 85 per cent of MPs would be elected in individual constituencies. The rest would be "top-up MPs" to reduce disproportionality and geographical divisions of first-past-the-post system.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
this is still possible with labout on 28 and libs on 22, tories on 43.
if a preference deal is done betwen libs and labour it is possible that labour could still cheat the voting public from its preferred choice.
in australia the liberals would have won the last 5 elections if fptp had operated, but the minor parties such as the greens do preference deals and that gets the labour party over the line.
i am sure this has been noticed.
expect alot of crawling to greens and even the bnp so that their votes are passed over to the right group. they may deny it, saying we will not change our views for minority party votes, but in oz it is all above board around electuon time. local deals are sometimes done against the national trend, but most people fall into line. i expect alot of environmental initiatives and people even ecouraged to vote green, knowing that their vote indirectly ends up in the labour pile.
w
with crosby over there having been in it up to his neck in oz, i expect a version of the oz system to be considered.
this is still possible with labout on 28 and libs on 22, tories on 43.
if a preference deal is done betwen libs and labour it is possible that labour could still cheat the voting public from its preferred choice.
in australia the liberals would have won the last 5 elections if fptp had operated, but the minor parties such as the greens do preference deals and that gets the labour party over the line.
i am sure this has been noticed.
expect alot of crawling to greens and even the bnp so that their votes are passed over to the right group. they may deny it, saying we will not change our views for minority party votes, but in oz it is all above board around electuon time. local deals are sometimes done against the national trend, but most people fall into line. i expect alot of environmental initiatives and people even ecouraged to vote green, knowing that their vote indirectly ends up in the labour pile.
w
with crosby over there having been in it up to his neck in oz, i expect a version of the oz system to be considered.
The electorate have short memories. It was the Tories under Thatcher who in 1985 de-regulated the financial sector following the lead set by Mr.Greenspan in the USA. This is around the time when Margaret Thatcher destroyed Manufacturing, preferring to rely on the 'Service Sector' and the newly developed Financial Sector to support the economy.
Extract Queens Speech 1985:
Measures will be introduced to establish a new regulatory framework for the financial services sector, which will enhance its efficiency and competitiveness whilst providing greater safeguards for the interests of investors, and to modernise and liberalise the law governing building societies.
The liberalisation of the Financial Sector allowed bankers to pay themselves £ millions in bonus payments whilst ruining the banks and the world economy. Fact.
Years later it is this that allowed Lehman Bros Bank (and other banks) to build up an excessive gearing ratio which failed and contributed to the world banking crisis.
Look at the current series on BBC2
When they bailed out the banks they had a chance to write into the contracts that until all the money was returned to the govt no bonuses would be paid and all bankers would be paid like civil servants. Did they do this? No. Now it's too late.
Thatcher started it but Labour have continued it. Running things efficiently is good. Waste is bad. Privatising the trains is a disaster and always was going to be. It should have been run efficiently and owned by the state. Dogma is always bad.
It is now Labour's legacy of pain I regret.
when the snp got 11 seats out of 71 in the 70's they very nearly reached the threshold to win many more seats. had they won 36 seats then the fact they did not have 50.1% of the vote was irrelevant. it was always deemed the majority of the seats was the key issue. no need to discuss with wastemonster, that was legally agreed. it was a near thing. 5% more would have done it.
as i see it, this means that the act of union between scotland and england is surreptitiously being changed, and that the snp will now require 50.1% of the vote and seats, if done via pr, which whilst they get to the mid 40's on occasions is unlikely.
having 40% of the votes would normally however get you the majority of the seats. labout has operated this way for 50 years.
this threat to scotland is one of the reasons for this being an issue, and like with megrahi, it is an outcome due to legislation and not (allegedly) the reason for the leguslation in the first place.
check with john curtice, ex labour advisor on the above as a cross reference.
labour need to do something, but having pronised referenda before and failed to provide them on europe and in scotland. they are proven as liars and should be seen as such.
they are near annihilation and have no credibility or integrity on most issues as far as the public is concerned, be it any of the big 4, iraq, afghanistan, expenses or the economy.
this is another simoplistic idea to suggest they have a semblance of fairness, and believe in democracy, which is clearly not seen as the case by the public in general.
What have we done to deserve this torture?
More posturing,and lies,from captain calamity Brown,and his cohorts of destruction.
The first past the post system is amoral,and to me smacks of some third world country with limited democratic rights-Ie you have a choice,as long as it does not alter the fundamental status quo.
No wonder people feel frustrated,cheated,and powerless.
Regardless of your politics,is it not right that in a so-called democracy,if a million vote for a certain organisation-then that million should have representation equal to that proportion of the entire vote.
I don't care if it is the BNP,order of the jedi,or whatever.
It is either a democracy-or it is not.
If it is not,then that fosters what tends to generally happen throughout the world-violent conflict of interests.And the British establishment could blame non others than themselves.
I say for God sake Brown do something usefull for once in your life-use your limited time left to your advantage, if you do not want to be remembered as only a disasterous prime minister.
Alter the voting system-and have your name remembered for something positive at least.
Actually I know the answer, that the government has enough money to do this, but the other 99% of the cost in backhanders to cronies makes it a little unaffordable at the moment.
It's not so much a case of moving the goalposts as moving the pitch, the stadium, kick off time and the date of the match and not telling anyone!
And Crash Gordon is the ref!
Foul or what?
For the mediocre people who have been running the country for what seems to be the last 40 years - only 14 ? well, well - anything, anything to avoid being deposed, and even worse, exposed.
I think that the press have a hugely important part to play in the next General Election if serious fraud is to be avoided. The expenses mess showed what can be done. Let's hope that the fourth estate is up to what could be a much bigger task.
No let us do it gently after the recession we will have filters groups of the ministers lean and great.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
It will certainly be debated for a while but the next howler from Labour is just around the corner. The sad thing is that Cameron doesn't have to do much that is positive because labour have been actively losing the next election for a year now. Now amount of campaigning will get Meltdown Brown elected for the FIRST time.
I just hope Labour can get their act together and be a good opposition party. Even the biggest supporters of labor must realise that some time in opposition will be good for the party. They will be able to reorganise, elect a proper leader properly and state their values. They seem to have become terribly confused. I think if you gave them a choice between spending and getting great value and spending double the amount without considering value they would choose the latter. Anyone who mentions efficiency and talks about results and value gets labelled a cutter, a slasher that wants to have millions on the dole etc. Crash Gordon always talks about how much he has spent, not what he has done. The MoD has wasted an absolute fortune according to the Public Accounts Committee. Gordon Brown has always talked about how much has been given to the military but we can see how badly supplied the troops are, the Marines actually feel sorry for the Brits!!
It's not so much about how much you spend but HOW YOU SPEND. I think that Cameron could do a better job (not hard) and it is up to the media to keep him under the spotlight and make sure he and his party manages wisely.
Labour in the meantime can sort themselves out and hopefully get away from the centralised dictatorship that they have become and start to represent the people / electorate. I think everyone agrees they need to change
The people of this country will as all countries do - get what they deserve. They've voted crazy Labour in three times and now are whingeing about the results. Tough. They didn't have to vote Labour in at all. They could have voted LibDem if they can't abide Tories. If they want a voting system that will ensure a Labour government for ever aided by desperate LibDem hangers-on, then vote for Gordon's "bright idea". If LibDems are so desperate to share power with Labour rather than offer a proper alternative of their own to the Tories,, that's their choice too but Labour will set out to control everything as usual because they are control freaks (as we canall see from the dreadful mess in this country now), the LibDems will be cheated as in the past and probably unable to do anything about it. The only way this scheme could work is if the LibDems and Tories slog it out and Labour becomes the third party - which is where it deserves to be after the mess it's made of Government.
Is a Labour govt for ever what you all want? With weak LibDem hangers-on? Why not vote LibDem and be done with it? Get Labour out!
All fear the encounters in these times and before you know, you are a dead duck. Brown is the winner in losing the TV debate. Our own great leader is a towering 5ft 11ins. You said towering Yes I believe in what you said, when I saw him with Kaddafi, he looked up. Kaddafi eats the raw egg and when it comes out it is a chicken. Can you beat that?
Tell me what is ponder, not sure of yourself, uncomfortable, inconsistent depressive thinking, psycho, contemplate; wonder about, brood over, to think about something carefully over a period of time. Why he is like that? My English is slightly under the table so I have to ask many.
So we have to try to restore trust, and one way is to change a discredited voting system." In other words we stick to the old system?
(AV) system Audiovisual equipment, AV products, Audio and Video System Design ...Audio visual equipment sales and services including AV system design and installation. Sales, rental, and leasing of projectors, screens, monitors, ...
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
rhinocircus wrote:
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
"We can summon once more that ordinary goodness of America, to serve our communities, to strengthen our country and to better our world," Obama said at a memorial at the Pentagon.
Firozali A. Mulla
from above to UK
This idea is not about Labour, Conservatives, LibDems or any other party for that matter - it is concerned with democracy plain and simple.
The British electorate deludes itself into thinking Britain is a democracy - it is no such thing. Democracy is a system in which the will of the people prevails - I know it may seem quaint but we need to remember that MPs and Parliament in general are there to serve the people, we elect them to govern in our name.
Britain's political framework may be broken but why has this parlous state of affairs come to pass - it bears repeating that under the UK's uniquely arcane voting system the current administration boasts a mandate to govern (Tony's words not mine) on the basis of the active votes of less than 20% of the potential electorate - yes that's right, those who either; don't bother to register to vote in the first place, register but abstain or vote for a n other party than the one forming the current govt. accounted for more than 8 out of 10 potential voters! Hardly the mandate Mr. Blair boasted off on that Friday morning in June 2005.
If Cameron does form the next govt. we can expect a similarly warped result, with a govt wielding virtually untrammelled power on the basis of minority support through the ballot box - that won't bother Dave one iota though as democratic principles are once again swept under the carpet on the grounds of political expediency.
The message is clear - change the voting system and you change British politics, permanently!
There are two big disappointments in the proposals set out above (if true)
1. MPs/Govt have no more right to determine their method of election than they have to decide how much they are paid or expensed - what is required is referendum asking if the people want to change to a fairer voting method - YES/NO. If the answer is YES, it is for the public represented in the form of a citizens panel or convention to decide the alternative voting system, not political élites!
2. Why are AV or AV+ always touted whenever electoral reform is advocated - what about the least worst system of all; Multi-Member STV?
giving us a choice of prime minister is, of course ridiculous
Zanulabour have already accepted that they cannot win in June and hope to leave a door open for later