DUP seeking to disempower voters by limiting choice

During the election campaign we heard the DUP leadership complaining about the split vote in unionism. For these elections that would have less impact as both our councils and European elections are determined by STV. However, as soon as these elections are over what do we learn but that the DUP are in discussions about forming an electoral pact with the UUP ahead of next year's Westminster elections.

They have only themselves to blame however. Three years ago they came out very strongly against the use of the Alternative Vote (AV) in Westminster elections indeed they viewed the referendum as an "unnecessary additional cost", while calling on other issues to be put to a referendum. They also said that AV "does not treat all votes equally and will further disempower voters by increasing the likelihood of hung parliaments". They also joined the rhetoric about deals being done behind closed doors as a result of those hung parliaments, but they appear to have no qualms about making those deals before the voter even has a say.

Is is this second statement that I want to look at. They said that AV would disempower voters, but as I said at the time when I was running the Northern Ireland Yes to Fairer Votes campaign the unionists themselves often disempower voters by forming their electoral pacts in seats.

Not every voter who votes for a unionist politician is going to support every other unionist politician and there are various reasons for this:

1. They may not agree with them on their stance of working with Ireland and/or Sinn Féin

This was particularly true in the early days of devolution. Indeed I know I wasn't the only person who refused to give a preference in the first Assembly elections to those parties or individuals who were opposed to the Agreement. That meant that the DUP didn't get a vote from me and others, also some individuals within the UUP also did not get my preference for their equally vehement opposition.

2. They may not agree with them on a specific issue

There are some hardline stances that the DUP take that the UUP allow as matters of conscious. These are common in the areas of LGBT legislation and abortion. There will be others but these are headline issues. On the former we know that some UUP individuals have been more in favour of LGBT equality and that is something that voters will be able to ask their candidates at the time of election and may well determine how they would vote.

However, if the two largest Unionist parties form a pact they take away the power of the individual voter in whatever seat they live in to make their own mind up about which of the two they prefer. Those people's votes have not been treated equally. They may be unable to vote unionist if they also disagree with the TUV who are likely to run a full slate or other smaller unionist parties if they have that option.

On the issue of same-sex marriage for example take away a supportive UUP option and the only way a voter might be able to express an unionist opinion would be if the PUP were to stand as they are the only unionist party to have adopted a policy in favour. No offense to the PUP but their chances of being elected are considerably less than most UUP candidates and certainly all DUP candidates would be. Therefore that person who wants to vote unionist but wants to show support for such an issue would find that their vote is not treated equally.

The DUP seem to think that all unionists don't care who they vote for as long as they can vote for a unionist. That of course is not the case and is making assumptions of the electorate. Also if they were to enter a pact with the UUP they would surely have to give up one or two of the safe unionist seats, which currently bar North Down the DUP hold exclusively, to make the offer enticing. So which of the DUP MPs is prepared to give up their seat for this electoral pact to work? Because if they only offer the UUP candidates in SDLP and Sinn Féin facing seats there would be nothing in it for the UUP.

Of course we all know the one seat that the DUP really want a pact with the UUP for. The crown in their view and the thorn in their flesh when they lost it in 2010. A seat they have tried to do everything to undermine the party that has held it since then, a party that they said was dead in the area but that this week's election results have proven is not the case.

So I conclude the DUP are prepared to disempower voters and limit their choice for their own petty political ends. That is not democracy that is despotic in behaviour.

Yes to Fairer Votes Referendum Broadcast

This is the broadcast that will be airing later today.

Labour Lords a Sleeping

Now some may call it pillow talk as a result of the all night sitting of the House of Lords. But it does appear as if some of them weren't half talking some nonsense through the night.

While I was sleeping one of my friends posted on Facebook that some Labour Peer has said:

"[Labour] now claiming that no present or future seat crosses county/local government boundaries."

This echoes something that was written yesterday for the Guardian  by Lewis Baston:

"The new boundary rules, as I have written at length elsewhere, are likely to produce a complicated and flawed new political map of Britain. The government's insistence on constituencies being a maximum of 5% away from the average size of 76,000 electors means that county boundaries will be crossed, local government wards split between parliamentary constituencies, and seats drawn up in defiance of community identity and sometimes of common sense."

May I draw both of their attentions to the seat where I have lived for most of the past decade and indeed stood as a candidate in both times it has been contested; Linlithgow and East Falkirk.


It does actually reside across two local authority areas, West Lothian and Falkirk Councils, but the multiplicity is worse than that. In Scotland of course we have Scottish constituencies, there was a danger on the first draft of the Scottish Parliamentary Boundaries that there would be three different constituency MSPs to be dealt with. In addition we have members for the regional list, two of which Lothians and Central Scotland already cause a split in Linlithgow and East Falkirk.


There are also two Health Boards (Lothian and Forth Valley), two police forces (Lothian & Borders and Central), the education is administered by Unitary Authority area so again two etc. So the hard working MP has to be sure just where in the constituency a constituent comes from to beware of addressing this matter to the right authority. Sadly the postcode of the constituents address is not going to be a guide. Though by in large the EH postcodes tend towards Edinburgh and Lothians and the FK ones towards Falkirk and Central, what about poor Bo'ness with its EH51 postcode?


Of course the fact that such confusion affects one of their own MPs fails to impress their Labour Lordships and Ladyships, as does the fact that this boundary review was carried out as part of Labour legislation. But it does seem to have interested them no end in the wee small hours as a reason to take up time to delay the 'Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill'.


If this is one erroneous argument being used by them that I have picked up in a cursory glance heavens knows how much else I might find if I actually look, that is merely time wasting and filibustering.

First Past What Post?

As many reader will now I now reside in North Down won in May by Sylvia, Lady Hermon with 63.3% of the vote. I also stood in Linlithgow and East Falkirk where Michael Connarty beat me and the rest of the field once again, gaining 49.8% of the vote.

Now these are both exceptional cases where in one case the MP has gained a majority of the vote and in the other were even on a preferential system you would expect that the First Past the Post (FPTP) candidate would have been elected. No doubt some of 3rd or 4th place candidates votes would either not have transferred or enough would have to make up that small short fall.

However, what is the post of which FPTP advocates are so keen to defend?

It is off course a movable entity. Take for example another constituency I know reasonably well, indeed I was looking to represent the Southern part of it next May, Edinburgh North and Leith. There the winning post in 2005 was painted red for Mark Lazarowicz with 14,597 votes. Kevin Lang in 2010 took a total of 16,016 on day when the Labour vote was going down on five years previously across the country. Did this reach the post first? No. Because Lazarowicz had moved to 17,740.

The alternative vote does mean that the post is set in stone, at 50% of the vote either as with Lady Hermon cast for you as the first preference or as in the majority of seats as a reflection of the public's additional preferences. AV is actually more of a first past the post system than FPTP, because it has a post that is unchanging, and a post that you need to aim for, rather than a moving line in the sand washed by the political tide.

PS As you may be able to tell I've spent some time on this issue over the past week. No prizes for guessing why. If you want to get involved in the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign visit their website.

UPDATE: I should really not be surprised that Micheal was also thinking along these lines today now should I?

Prisioners and the Ballot Box

The opening paragraph of the preamble to the Liberal Democrat constitution states (emphasis mine):

"The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives."

So therefore the fact that for the first time since 1870* that prisoners are to get the right to vote restored in the UK, is enshrined in our party constitution. The resultant change is not being brought about solely by the good nature of the new Government but as a result of a 2005 ruling the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). It was sort of there in our manifesto under the coverall line

"Ensure that everyone has the same protections under the law by protecting the Human Rights Act"

Everyone having the same protections should include the right for everyone to have the right to decide who makes those laws.

No doubt the Daily Fail will be up in arms about this, but the prison population that will be affected by the change in this law is only 70,000 people. Assuming that they will each be entitled to vote in the address where they were last resident, rather than where they are detained, it comes to an average of 117 votes per each of the proposed 600 constituencies.

Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said a "historic decision to enfranchise serving prisoners" would bring to an end the "archaic punishment of civic death". She said:

"In a modern prison system you would expect prisoners to have rights and responsibilities and politicians to take an active interest in their constituency prisons. People are sent to prison to lose their liberty not their identity."

While each country has the right under the ECHR ruling to decide what offences would carry voting restrictions, rather than the blanket ban that exists as present. If we believe in a restorative prison system, then surely we must believe that anyone serving a conviction no matter for what crime may serve a useful role in society at some point. Even some of those that are serving life sentences without any hope of remand may still be restored and serving useful functions within the walls of their confinement, passing on lessons in whatever way is possible to others that re-offending is not the way to go.

I'm glad to be a member of a party that enshrines the right of the individual. That stands up for each and every one of the citizens of the UK. While standing up for the rights of some individuals may seem hard and a tough thing to do at times, it is important that the rights of all are defended. Of course course imprisonment of some is required for the greater good to society as a whole, but those convicted are still individual citizens.

* The Forfeiture Act (1870) upheld in the Representation of the People Act (1983)

Remember the Chartists and Their Call for Equal Seats

You may recall back in July I condemned Labour's objection to equal sized constituencies by quoting from the 1838 People's Charter which gave rise to the Chartist movement.

Well the people at Take Back Parliament have taken up the theme. They are holding a rally at the Reformer Tree in Hyde Park, London this Saturday to remember the Chartists and their aim, relisted below.

1. A vote for every man twenty-one years of age, of sound mind, and not undergoing punishment for crime.
2. The secret ballot. - To protect the elector in the exercise of his vote.
3. No property qualification for members of Parliament - thus enabling the constituencies to return the man of their choice, be he rich or poor.
4. Payment of members, thus enabling an honest tradesman, working man, or other person, to serve a constituency, when taken from his business to attend to the interests of the Country.
5. Equal Constituencies, securing the same amount of representation for the same number of electors, instead of allowing small constituencies to swamp the votes of large ones.
6. Annual parliaments, thus presenting the most effectual check to bribery and intimidation, since though a constituency might be bought once in seven years (even with the ballot), no purse could buy a constituency (under a system of universal suffrage) in each ensuing twelve-month; and since members, when elected for a year only, would not be able to defy and betray their constituents as now.

So if are you able to get you hands on some appropriate 1830's clothing you can turn up in costume but that's not compulsory go along to support the moves for electoral reform which are still ongoing 160 years after the People's Charter. Go along from 13:00- 17:00 this Saturday, 25th September.

***BREAKING*** Change in Law Required Says Election Report

The report into the problems encountered on election day where queues of people were waiting for hours to vote and were not issued a ballot paper before 10pm (therefore not being able to vote) requires a change in the law says the Electoral Commission report

There were 1,200 people affected who were still queuing to vote in London, Sheffield, Newcastle, Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham when Big Ben struck 10 on May 6th. As the law stands you have to have been issued with your ballot paper when 10 pm comes not merely be in the polling station or in a queue to get into a polling station.

Of course polling station staff will have to wait until every valid ballot paper is deposited in the ballot box before sealing them and sending them on their way to the count, but for a nation of queuers some of the queues to vote didn't go smoothly on the day.

I've queued for Wimbledon and I've queued overnight to get in. The queue there are issued with a numbered card which is checked off as you enter the fenced off approach to the gates, ensuring that nobody jumps the queue and gets there ahead of time, it is a well run and marshalled queue. So surely there must be some way to validate the identity of voters and issue a ballot paper to those who have queued up to vote.

On the night there were suggestions that those in the queue should be let into the building that is serving as the polling station and the doors closed behind them so that they will not be swayed by any news after 10 PM comes. Although to be fair none of us these days are truly fully cut off when we are in a public place like a polling station. But the premise holds that they would not be swayed by any outside influence coming down the queue and you would know who was in the queue at 10 PM as the doors are then closed, like many stores do at the end of the day*. Once somebody has voted obviously a member of staff or police officer will act on the door to let the individual out.

It makes sense, it may require a certain amount of overflow space in some locations to be available, or some other way to identify the people in the queue if that is not possible.

But it is something that can be done and should be done.

* Though not 5 minutes before the advertised closing time as I know happens in some shops.

Quote of the Day - from Westminster North

"Jo [Cash A-lististo and PPC] seems to be coasting along and has not been pulling her weight. She wanted to get pregnant but this has happened at an unfortunate time. It should not be used as an excuse."

Wow! Yeah it is an unfortunate time to become pregnant, doesn't Jo Cash know there is no crèche in the Houses of Parliament?

But seriously this sort of comment and the attitude of Westminster North Conservative Association shows the problem that David Cameron has in steering his party. He may be at the helm but I don't think his rudder is breaking below the surface.

Jo Cash was one of those sorts of people that Dave wants us to believe that the Conservative party has become, inclusive, young, not all crusty old men. Her bio on her Twitter page currently starts with RIP Dinosaurs. But her battle with the local association shows they aren't quite dead yet, indeed as some of the debate on Parliamentary reform showed some of them are still living and breathing on the green benches behind Dave's back.

Northern Irish born Jo walked out of a local association meeting on Monday night feeling that her efforts to promote social action initiatives and reach out to the Labour vote in some of the more impoverished parts of the city have been frustrated by the association and the local Tory agent. Another thorn in her side had been the local constituency chairman Amanda Sayers who was installed as President at the meeting. Sayers is old school (just tell Baroness Thatcher) who gave up her own political aspirations to raise her family.

At that meeting in the pub issues had come to such a head that for a local branch meeting Eric Pickles, the Conservative chairman, and Lord Strathclyde, the Shadow Leader of the Lords and retiring local association president, were both present, along with Matthew Carrington, the party’s area chairman. Yesterday Pickles and Michael Grove, the Shadow Education Secretary spent the day saving the A-lististo's career.

However, Cash was selected from the Centrally run A-listing short list, she advocates all women short lists, her salvation came when Conservative Central Office stepped in to save her. The this the same CCO that is tightly controlling their party candidates' online communication. I wonder if the 'RIP Dinosaurs' comment is approved? The fact is that the Tories had to exercise central control to save embarrassment because they are running away from their base.

They'd like to tell us this is the year for change, but deep down they haven't changed. The only thing that changes with a Conservative vote this year is the person in charge of bringing you the same, old, tired politics. This incident with Jo Cash's local authority shows you what lies just beneath the surface.

Last night in the debate on electoral reform they showed quite happily they they didn't care about representing the majority of the people, only enough to get their agenda through, they don't even care why people do not like them. They have already through Annabel Goldie given up on Scotland again this time.

Brown's AV Proposals Hand Edinburgh South to Lib Dems - Curtice

Last night Eric Joyce asked on Twitter, "AV [Alternative Vote] Voting. Any thoughts?" so I had a little debate with him about how it was change not reform etc. How it still gave too much power to the parties and not enough to the people. he went strangely silent on me when I asked. "Why now? It was discussed pre-1997 by the Blair-Ashdown negotiations. Why wait 13 years?".

I take it Eric's silence adds strength to the argument that Gordon Brown is proposing this now as a political expedient not out of any real commitment. Indeed in this morning's Scotsman John Curtice points out that the Lib Dems are everyone's second favourite, so AV would help the Lib Dems, but only he says in seats where are already a strong second like in Edinburgh South. Indeed he thinks AV would deliver us a dozen or so extra seats.

Of course the other issue is who is going to be second favourites elsewhere. Curtice says:

"The SNP is unlikely to gain much either. The Nationalists cannot be sure of winning more second preference votes from Conservatives and Liberal Democrats than Labour.

"But who do Liberal Democrat and SNP voters prefer more – Conservative or Labour? The answer is clear – Labour. In the ICM poll, 45 per cent of Liberal Democrat supporters said Labour was their second choice, only 28 per cent the Conservatives. Only a handful of SNP supporters in the 2007 local elections gave any support to a Tory candidate.

"So where Labour lie a close second to the Conservatives, the new system could enable them to capture the seat. But the Conservatives are unlikely to gain where they are close to Labour – while of the two parties they are also more likely to be leapfrogged by a local Liberal Democrat."

It is a fault with a majority system such as AV which is not proportional to the voting intentions of the electorate but merely a reallocation of the votes to the next best option.

Andrew Burns the Labour leader on Edinburgh City Council self deprecates with his blog title Really Bad Blog, but this morning I want to hold him up as a Labour elected representative who speaks sense.

He says seeing as the use of Alternative Vote (AV) for Westminster Elections have now been tabled as an amendment to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, he says it is:

"Pretty straightforward to adjust it from a majoritarian to a proportional system ... "

He then outlines almost the wording (bar the use of 2 member constituencies and a few other pieces) that I think a Lib Dem MP should be tabling replacing AV with a Single Transferable Vote System(STV).

STV also gives more power to the people, last night Eric Joyce was bemoaning the fact that 8 MSPs had some say over the voters of Falkirk that he represents. He was also saying that he liked to let the people have their personal say over his re-election. Thing is the bulk of that say is down to the local party, there only is one Labour candidate that the people of Falkirk have to vote for under the AV proposals.

Say if under STV Falkirk and say Livingston and Linlithgow were returning 3 MPs there may well be 2 or 3 Labour candidates for the people to choice from. It would combine the aspect of the people deciding which Labour candidate was their preferred option, plus also decide between the various candidates. This may not be to Eric's liking for his own personal reasons* but suits people like Iain Dale who advocate open primaries. It gives a certain amount of power to the people. It makes peoples votes fairer and is proportional rather than a shifting of the votes.

My current choice of words to explain Brown's position is a misquote of Neil Armstrong. AV is one small step which suits Labour best, where is the giant leap for fairness to the electorate?

In conclusion Curtice sums up Brown's long road to his Damascus moment to change the voting system like this:

"Under current circumstances at least, the attractions of the Alternative Vote for Labour are clear. Its adoption would make it even more difficult for the Conservatives to win a majority, only make it a little easier for the Liberal Democrats to secure extra seats, while Labour's chances of winning a majority might even be enhanced.

"Not so much "new" politics as an old-fashioned political fix."

Brown is fiddling but at least Andrew Burns is man enough to spot the score.

PS On a point of order made by Caron on twitter of course we don't need AV to get Fred Mackintosh as the MP for Edinburgh South. He is more than capable of overhauling that 405 vote margin over Nigel Griffiths Candidate X under first past the post.

Read also: Alistair Carmichael MP on why you should beware of dying Governments bearing gifts. Plus Mark Thompson estute as ever on whether AV is even worth campaigning for.

*Most expensive MP in the House of Commons.

Labour Voting Reform Worthless

The Torygraph are jumping over themselves when a source close to Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has said of Labour's voting reforms:

"They are worthless and don't go nearly far enough."

The Torygraph go on to conclude:

"The force of his reaction has strengthened the belief that he is much more inclined to prop up a minority Conservative administration than a Labour one."

Err....not necessarily. The Tories are more than happy with the status quo on voting systems. They want First Past the Post (FPTP), indeed some of their MSPs who actually owe their presence in Holyrood to proportional representation (PR) have actually said they'd prefer FPTP. They argue it is easier to understand, but of course for the majority of voters it often comes down to voting for what you actually believe in, or the party most likely to win that isn't as bad as the other at the top. Therefore the current system is not a easy way to understand the people's intentions or preferences.

A prime example of this may well be the fact that although the SNP are riding high in the polls their raison d'etre independence does less well when polled. They are seen by many as merely the lesser worse option than Labour.

So what does Nick want if Labour's Alternative vote system on the current boundaries does not go far enough. The answer is obvious along with reducing the number of MPs, electing the Lords, we'll be calling for multi-member constituencies by STV. Then the everyone of the people's vote will count as it was intended, as it is preferred, not merely as the voter things is the less bad option with a winning chance.

Few Tools Beyond the Brute Force of Political Edict

So what do Labour do to get things done? We according to 60 Whitehall's senior officials they have 'few tools beyond the brute force of political edict'.

Indeed the findings for the Institute for Government also say that despite their grip on power there is a "conspicuous lack of a single coherent strategy for government". Indeed they call for a radical shake up of Whitehall if it is to function after the election, whoever is in power. As Nick Clegg has been saying recently the old ways are not working, they need to chance, even the Civil Servants are saying that, not a phrase we often heard Sir Humphrey saying in Yes Minister.

In the report Shaping Up: A Whitehall for the Future there is a damning assessment of Labour.

• Downing Street lacks a coherent strategy and is reduced to issuing "barmy ideas" as it squabbles with the Treasury and the Cabinet Office. Giving No 10 greater powers would inflict only more harm on the country.
• Ministers have lost their grip: "The machine is starting to pull away from them. There is a sense that you are at the end of an era."
• The Treasury has given up on its duty to control public spending because it has been "hijacked and turned into a social policy department, a welfare department, a reducing international debt department, an everything-under-the-sun department".

Indeed in the anonymous interviews with senior civil servants many of whom have served through all 13 years of Labour Government the director-general of one department said:

"What comes out of No 10 is lots of barmy ideas. It’s the worst possible kind of policy making, which is ‘here is a problem, let’s have a kneejerk reaction to it tomorrow on what we’re going to announce’ and quite frankly the less contact with No 10 the better."

Well Liberal Democrats have been saying for a while that Labour are thinking on the hoof. One example was their reaction to MPs expenses. Many of the things that Labour came up with in the interim do not make sense and lack the transparency that the public demand. For example the daily subsidence allowance is a flat rate, it is not based on the actual expense of things required. Jo Swinson told us the story last year of how post scandal she wanted to make claims for incidental food whilst travelling out of her offices etc which came to less than one day's allowance. The fees office wouldn't have it and asked her to claim for the 6 days in question in full!!!

They rejected Nick Clegg's call to discuss this, and indeed far reaching reforms. Reforms that would include reforming parts of Whitehall. Cameron of course wants to make change in Whitehall as well, however he merely wants to cut it incredibly without looking at functionality, indeed he is hinting that certain functions will be 'best' (in his opinion) carried out by being put to private tender. Don't think that is what the report is looking for in reform either when it says of the current set up.

"The fragmentation and lack of co-ordination at the centre of the civil service — the Treasury, No 10 and the Cabinet Office — leads to an administrative centre that is relatively weak. This curious situation has created a strategic gap at the heart of British government which inhibits the ability to set overall government priorities and translate them into action."

So if Labour live in the mess, and the Conservatives merely want to hive the responsibilities out, is this the way to reform governance. As Nick Clegg said on BBC's Hardtalk last week:

"David Cameron talks about change, but none of the Conservative MPs who avoided capital gains tax or made huge profits flipping their homes were forced to resign. He promised to give people the right to sack corrupt MPs but then the Conservatives voted against a law that would do just that. They have made it clear they will block attempts to make the voting system fair. They walked out on cross-party talks on party funding and refused to cap donations.

"Labour promised to clean up politics and make it fair but they failed. They wouldn't even push through reform after the expenses scandal. They went back on their promise to change the voting system.

"They failed to make the House of Lords elected and accountable to voters. They failed to clean up party funding because they rely on the unions. And they blocked attempts to give people the right to sack corrupt MPs. Labour will never change the political system."

So what is on offer to shape up Government. Again Nick said:

"We [Lib Dems] will introduce a fair voting system, ensure that MPs can be sacked by their constituents if they break the rules, return powers to local communities and stop tax avoiders from standing for Parliament, sitting in the House of Lords or donating to political parties."

There will also be plans to reform Whitehall it is part of the efficiency savings we've been crying out for since the start of the banking crisis reared its head. We recognise that of course Government departments serve a purpose but there are parts of it that need a shake up and some of the quangos are just a way to feather nests of those who want to influence. Government whatever its size isn't of itself bad which the Tories seem to think (i.e. Big is bad) but how it functions is important. That is the difference. That is real change.

Make It So - The Reforming Queen's Speech

The Labour Pre-Manifesto Queen's speech is being attacked in today's Independent by Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg as a "waste of everyone's time" over the next 70 days of Government sitting before a General Election is called. Merely acting as window dressing for a lot of what Labour want to do beyond the date of the poll.

Here then is what Nick and the people want want to hear when she takes her speech out of the pouch on the throne in the Lords on Wednesday.

My Government would like to apologise to the my subjects for the way it has flagrantly mistreated them, and their money, over their expenses claims. They have listened to One's subjects are will be putting together a programme of wide sweeping reform to remedy this lack of trust, accountability and transparency before they come to One ready to go to the people in the spring.

Over the next seventy days my Government will start by enacting all the proposals of the Kelly Commission without exception. (gasps from those standing at the rear of the chamber). Oh yes you will. (aside: Can One still send them to the Tower?) As many as can be will be in place immediately shall be, the remainder will be enabled ready to come into effect on the resumption of the next Parliamentary session.

My Government realises though that the Kelly Commission report is merely a way of capturing the horse after it has bolted, so is proposing with the rest of Parliaments time to shore up the stable and paddock as well, so that the temptation or ability to bolt in this way is not presentable again to its members.

Therefore My Government will bring to both Houses legislation to curb the power of the whips offices, enabling more power to be placed in the hands of back bench MPs and therefore those of One's subjects whom they represent. Further to this they will present a Bill to set the length of each subsequent Parliament Term to occur on the first Thursday of may every four years thereafter, thus removing the ability of my Government to benefit from a favourable mood in the nation, something which their monarch has never had the ability so to do.

Legislation will also be brought before both Houses to install a Member's code of conduct, including an independent commission to adjudicate on members maintaining of said code. They will then also move a Bill that any Member in serious breach of the code, can when one in ten of their electorate deem fit face a recall election, in which they are entitled to stand either with the backing of their party, or falling that as an independent and any who choose to challenge them on their record.

This brings my Government to the part of how such elections will be carried out. Firstly by the end of this session my Government will pass a Bill to fully elect the House of Lords. The current Life Peers will take on the title of Working Peers. Each party representation will decide amongst their current Membership, by lot, three thirds measures of their membership. Their representation will be distributed evenly dependent on electorate across geographical areas in line with the European Election regions. The first third will present themselves to the public in 2012, for election for six years, the subsequent thirds in 2014 and 2016. The same rules of Code of Conduct and for procedure when they are breached shall also apply to One's Working Peers.

Finally my Government proposes to bring legislation to this place and the other place that all elections to seats in this Palace will be contested by proportional representation, using a Single Transferable Vote, for multi-member wards. The first for working peers will be in place in 2012, and the Boundary Commission with draw up 5-6 members constituencies for the lower chamber in time for the election that shall occur on the first day of May in the year of our Lord 2014 D.V. which may be the sixty-second year of One's reign if One is spared.

All this shall come to be for the sake of One's subjects, for sake of restoring trust in My Government and My Opposition and all who deem to represent the people of this United Kingdom in these places.

(At the point Her Majesty adjusted the royal robes, leaned forward slightly in the throne and looked down the chamber to where the Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown, Rt. Hon. David Cameron, Rt. Hon Nick Clegg and other leaders were standing. Looking them in the eye she raised her right hand and pointed the four fingers in their direction) Make it so, number ones.

Update: See also Stephen Tall's reflections at Lib Dem Voice.

Mary Honeyball, are you aware of what reform is or aren't you?

Maybe Mary Honeyball MEP wants a nice cosy soundbite, like wot Gordon gave her in Brighton last week, when she wrote for LabourList 'Nick, are you committed to reform or aren't you?'. Too busy to read all 92 pages of Nick's pamphlet the Liberal Moment.

Maybe she was too busy trying to get elected to hear Nick Clegg calling for deep and serious reform before the summer recess. A far deeper reform than her dear leader was willing to offer in the speech that apparently was changing key themes up to 1:30 on the morning it was made.

Maybe, most worryingly, she doesn't know that reform is, this history of her own party to fail to deliver, or maybe like so many in the Labour Party she just doesn't get it.

To save you time Mary all you need to read to see that Nick is pages 45-49 of the Liberal Moment. Or maybe look at what the Lib Dems did in Scotland delivering on electoral reform into the programme of Government after only 4 years as a minor partner to a larger party. When after 12 years of a large majority Labor has failed to meet its 1997 pledges to bring about a fully elected House of Lords or the promise of electoral reform.

Nick outlines what true reform is, in those few short pages. He points out that the only more centralised Government system is Europe is in a place with fewer people than the Borough of Croydon, and that being Malta. Yet 16 years ago the great Labour hope, no not Blair but John Smith said:

"I want to see a fundamental shift in the balance of power between the citizen and te state - a shift away from an overpowering state to a citizens' democracy where the people have rights and powers and where they are served by accountable and responsive government."

So much for the road not taken. Nick does admit that Labour did start on some of the reforms that Robin Cook and Bob Maclennan sought to push forward, but before them Roy Jenkins. But they have failed on the big things and some of the delivery. Labour have refused to cap donations. Refuse to listen to their own members but bow to the union paymasters.

Jenkins wanted power dispersed from an overbearing executive and given back to Parliament, yet Labour have just closed in, trying to control the Internet, the media and the voters from a war room in Whitehall. He lists the lack of transparency and scrutiny that led to the expenses scandal being so blown up, as nobody had any idea what some of their MPs were up to, and then when they did Parliament over did it with the redacting.

But Mary one of the final paragraphs answers your question fully. Nick writes:

"Finally, but fundamentally, we need to give people a proper say in who governs the country with fair votes. No government should be able to secure total power with the support of just one out of five people. Political reform might seem obscure sometimes, but it underpins real change. As I have outlined, it is our very system of election that confines the scope of our governments to create a fairer, freer society that Liberal Democrats have always championed."

So why then Mary asks are we bowing to the Conservatives, did you miss it Mary. Nick wants to be Prime Minister. We already have Labour on the run. We are looking to target the Conservatives and we'll put up a stronger fight that Labour are doing at present. Recent opinion polls after our conference showed clear inroads into the Conservative support, with a little bit more chipped off a faltering Labour Party.

We're taking the fight to both of you, a message of real change and real reform that neither of the other parties have delivered despite having the votes to.

VotertragedyapproachesGordonisatrocious*

I guess I'm on a song lyric re-writing burst myself. One wonders what Gordon Brown would come out with if faced with the threat of a Jeremy Paxman interview on Newsnight. After all the blogopshere has already taken Brown to town. Would a nervy Prime Minister see the menace in Paxo's eyes and fess up? Maybe: though probably not as musically as the Sherman brothers' lyrics to Mary Poppins which I've rehashed below though.

PAXMAN

So Prime Minister your speech went down well in the hall but the Sun are saying you’ve lost it. Have you really lost all ambition and hope of forming the next Government.

BROWN

No Jeremy
No Jeremy
That’s not what I see!
Because I’m as plucky
As plucky can be

So Jeremy
So Jeremy
What you say isn’t true!
The people will decide
It’s not up to you
And the Sun is remiss
If they think so too

PAXMAN

Now in Mori’s opinion poll
You’ve been stung
It shows that Labour’s
On the bottommost rung

BROWN

Though Prescott spends time
Dreamin’ of chaps he could choke
In the next Parliament
It’s the people who vote

Now Jeremy
Now Jeremy
Can we talk policy!
It’s how we can win
And winners be

PAXMAN

Your policy
From what I see
Aren’t really that new!
You’ve made some often
But not seen them through
As for teenage mums
It’s workhouse renewed

BROWN

Ah Jeremy
Err Jeremy
Ask the BNP!
It’s their policy
We nicked it you see

So Jeremy
Oh Jeremy
Voting change too!
Lib Dems will love us
When that we review
We'll give them AV
Yes that's what we'll do.

But Jeremy
Lord ‘reditry
‘istr’y they’ll be!
When people place their vote
For Labour and me

No where is there
A more 'appier crew
Than them wot sings
"The Red Flag, me,
Labour new!"
But you've shown Jeremy
Our policy
Is see through!

Lyrics Stephen Glenn
Music Richard M. Sherman and Robert B. Sherman

*Working out the title maybe I chose the wrong song, or maybe I'm just still being inspired.

Is it Really People that Decide Elections Mr Brown?

OK I see that Gordon is putting a brave face on the Sun setting on the brave New Labour world of the past 12 years. He is saying that 'it is people that decide elections' not newspaper editorials. As Mr Dale, who is seeking to join the Commons for Bracknell, points out though we heard that before the last time the Murdoch empire lurched towards where the power maight lie.

However, as I pointed out just the other day ably backed up by Mark Thompson that isn't so much the case as the Electoral Calculus on the Ipsos Mori opinion poll highlighted it ain't necessarily so, even with us on 25% over Labours 24% we'd have more people yet less seats. Indeed the 1983 general election result also graphically illustrated this point. It isn't so much the people that decide elections as the politicians in the parties in power decide to sew that support up between then.

Take for example the last General Election Labour and the Tories won 67.5% of those who bothered to turn up and vote, yet between them managed to grab 85.8% of the 646 seats.

Labour had 35.3% vote share yet 55.1% of the seats
Tories 32.3% for 30.7% of the seats
Lib Dems 22.1% for only 9.6% of the seats.

Indeed there are estimated to be only 850,000 voters in swing seats that are targeted in a General Election there are too many safe seats, something that Brown's proposal of an AV system to elect a single person for a constituency is going to do little to rectify. As Mark pointed out (in what should have been Blog Post of the year) when MPs are comfortable in their seats as the vast majority of Labour and Conservative MPs tend to be they get lax. They tend to see it as what they can get out of it, rather than what is best for the people they are meant to be serving. The safer they are Mark pointed out the more they abused the system.

So Gordon no matter how much you think it is 'the people' who decide elections it really only is 646 people that really do. The MPs have the power to decide the system in which the people's votes and views are fairly taken into consideration. There is something you can do about that rather than just promise it. Hold a referendum before the next lot (whoever they are) come into power even if that is on election day, there actually is enough parliamentary time to make this so*. You've promised a referendum on voting reform to the Commons since 1997 and three historic full Labour terms have thus far failed to deliver. Why should we trust you with a fourth to make it happen? If you want to do it do it now, don't promise it in yet another manifesto.

*Several fellow Lib Dems will appreciate the geekishness of that phrase.

One Foot in Brown's Grave

The lastest Ipsos Mori puts Labour in 3rd place in an opinion poll for the first time since Michael Foot was leader in 1982. With the Tories on 36% down 7% on last month, the Liberal Democrats on 25% up 8% and Labour on 24% down 2%.

Of course the media are going to put this down to a Lib Dem conference bounce, but don't forget this is the same media that said that the Lib Dem conference was a disaster for the leadership only last week. Maybe it is a conference bounce and if it is it shows that the people can see past the media spin and realise that the Lib Dems listen to people whether the party members for forming policy or as Katy Gordon proved the people (women) on the street.

Rumours tonight are also circulating that Gordon Brown is going to announce at last that he is prepared to take part in Prime Ministerial debates ahead of the next general election. However, there are also hints that he is seeking to exclude Nick Clegg from some of the series of debates he proposes. Here in lies a fault there are currently just 8% points between the three main parties in this latest opinion poll. Not as close as in 1982 when it was wafer thin between the three. Then the other two parties tried to exclude the Alliance to hinder the birth of three party politics, now 25 years on Labour are trying to do the same again from an even weaker position.

The only bright spot of the Labour conference so far it seem was Lord Mandlevort of Hartlepool and Foy's speech this afternoon. From what I saw yesterday it look like a wake. They truly are a party on the downward slide. Now the Prime Minister is worse off than they were in there darkest hour in opposition. Not only is he in third place but has less than a quarter of the support of those polled. He truly does have one (Michael) Foot in the Grave. Things can only get worse, one expects.

However, the hegmony of our current electoral system is once again shown when the opinion poll is put into Electoral Calculus. On this opinion poll the Tories would have 327 seats, Labour on 209 and the Lib Dems with 82. So even having overhauled a sick Labour Party in the opinion polls the Lib Dems would still have less than half the seats. How the apologists for First Past the Post can call this a clear, simple, easy-to-understand outcome is beyond me. Even when they are in third place Labour would still maintain a strong second place in the number of seats. Just how safe are some of those that wear a red rosette?

The answer sadly is that leaving the Tories as they are on 36% even if the Lib Dems reach 30% and Labour sink to 19% they will still have more seats than the second most popular Lib Dems. The split is 341, 141, 135. Surely that cannot be right?

Our Disenfranchised Soldiers - Lib Dems Seek Solution

Earlier this week Jess the Dog an ex-RAF officer turned blogger highlighted the fact that our service men and women on active service are currently effectively disenfranchised under current election laws. As he points out that under the current voting system there are only 11 days, inclusive of weekends, from the point at which candidates’ names are confirmed, to printing in the UK, delivery of papers and posting to the overseas destination and back to the chosen constituency. Quite simply this does not work for those serving overseas.

He would be glad to know that on the 21st September this is one of the things that are being address in the Liberal Democrat conference. Under the motion Reaffirming the Military Covenant on the agenda for that day there are 8 actions being called for:

• The basic pay of the lower ranks and NCOs to be brought in line with the equivalent police ranks, so that a private in Afghanistan is paid no less than a newly qualified police constable, funded through the MOD staff restructuring
• A doubling of the number of forces' family homes refurbished from around 800 to 1600 per year, halving the length of time it will take to achieve the highest grade, funded through reasonable reductions in senior armed forces officers in the MOD.
• A review of the current arrangements for repair and maintenance of the of forces' accommodation with the feasibility study on returning to a warden system for military housing estates.
• The military covenant between the state, society and the army to be codified to guarantee real entitlements for service personnel of the three services and their families.
• Proper medical provision for all service personnel including post-conflict debriefings and counselling, with particular emphasis on post-traumatic stress disorder.
• Reform to voting arrangements for service personnel so that they and their families can exercise their democratic rights.
• Savings to be sought from fighter jet procurement and operational costs and invested in helicopters for Afghanistan to provide additional capabilities.
• A full -scale Strategic Security and Defence Review.

Admittedly the one line about voting somehow seems lacking in detail compared to some of the other actions. So what exactly can be done.

The recent America elections of course had some close counts delayed while the absentee ballots (often of forces personnel) arrived to be counted. This is one possible solution but can you imagine the disappointment on Dimbleby's or Kyle's face if a barracks, port or airbase of active personnel fell within one or more of their marginals on the night and they'd have to wait for the Service Post to get back with the papers to give them the full result, rather that at some point in the early hours of Friday morning.

A lot of our personnel now have some sort of online connection to the outside world. If not directly where they are stationed at least at home base. The actual delivery and return therefore of a vote to these personnel need not take too long. If any section of our community were worthy of an expansion of the franchise into electronic voting the forces certainly are a prime case.

Surely some secure server connection to a central online polling station in the UK which could link the service persons service number to their registered address would allow them to vote on all the relevant elections taking place that day where they are based. This could also be set up like the early voting in America to allow personnel who are destined to be on missions on polling day to cast their vote. Then at 10pm on election night all these ballots can be sent out to the relevant returning officers at the counts to add into their tallies.

We're toyed with the idea of electronic voting and this is one group that would benefit most from its introduction in my opinion. Yet somehow the Government do not seem to have moved the position on since 2006 when as Jess pointed out Total Politics ran a report on the issue which included the following:

Douglas Young, of the British Armed
Forces Federation (BAFF) says: "The run-up to the 2005 general election was
an utter farce. There's still anger about it". His report 'Silence in the
Ranks' detailed the problems faced by members of the armed forces including
legislative changes in 2000, website information and postal voting problems.

Andrew Robathan MP for Blaby criticised the government for being dismissive:
"I firmly believe the government didn't want people in the armed forces voting
because of the large numbers who wouldn’t vote Labour. The government dragged
its heels deliberately", he says.

What has changed? Nothing. Are the government still more scared of losing the votes of the forces than being fair in allowing their democratic voice to be heard? It looks like it and that is something that seriously needs to be redressed.