Independent: Referendum campaign on voting reform has begun. Does it matter?

The Independent's lead article today surveys the political field at the start of the full-blown campaign for a Yes or a No vote in the upcoming referendum (5 May). No surprises that the newspaper supports a 'Yes' vote, despite reservations with AV itself—their position is that it is at least an improvement on FPTP and will act to 'free up' debate and reform....

Yesterday, the curtain was raised on the official campaign in support of a Yes vote in the referendum on the alternative vote on 5 May. Many will be tempted to ask: why should we care? The headlines are crowded with urgent matters of life and death. Japan is experiencing a nuclear emergency. The rebellion in Libya is reaching a crucial stage. There is turmoil across the wider Arab world. And here at home, we are about to experience the most severe spending cuts in a generation.

So why should we care about whether or not our ballot papers allow us to list candidates in order of preference at general elections? Is this not irrelevant to people's real lives, a preoccupation of political anoraks? Apathy is an understandable reaction but it is a misguided one. We should care about this referendum because it is a chance to inaugurate a new, more fully representative political era.

This newspaper's campaign for electoral reform began after the 2005 general election, when Labour won a double-digit majority with the support of just 35 per cent of those who voted. We are used to a winner-takes-all politics in Britain, but that stretched the definition of "winner" almost to destruction. Tens of thousands of you – our readers – signed our petition calling for a fairer voting system. The extent and passion of your feedback made it clear to us that the Prime Minister at the time, Tony Blair, was desperately wrong when he argued that there was "no appetite" among the British people for a change to our voting system.

AV is not the reform that we would have chosen. It is not a proportional system. And under certain circumstances it might mean even bigger landslides. AV would erode, but not eliminate, the problem of "safe" seats. Yet it would mean a more representative House of Commons and a much less restrictive voting system.

The democratic contract between MPs and constituents would be strengthened since politicians would only be returned to Westminster if they enjoyed the support of a majority of their constituents. And the curse of the first-past-the-post system – the argument that a vote for a smaller party is "wasted" – would be eliminated at a stroke, because the second preference votes of lower-placed candidates would be reallocated if the first count failed to produce a clear winner. The public will be able to vote for the person they want to represent them (as their first preference) without having to agonise about whether they are effectively disenfranchising themselves if they choose a candidate representing a smaller party.

The arguments of the AV opponents are generally weak and misleading. But they keep coming. The former Labour cabinet minister, John Reid, argued yesterday that AV gives the supporters of minority parties "more of a say" in elections than the supporters of mainstream parties. Yet Mr Reid has nothing to say about the gross unfairness of the present system, which often denies those who fail to back one of the larger parties any influence whatsoever on the outcome.

It is assumed that AV would boost the parliamentary representation of the Liberal Democrats. But the merit of this reform is not that it would benefit any individual political party, but rather its impact on the overall political landscape. Those arguing for business as usual fail to recognise the extent of the disaffection of voters with the status quo, which has yielded an unhealthy disconnection between the political classes and the broad mass of the public. The public reaction to the 2009 MPs' expenses scandal merely exposed a gulf that was already there. AV is an opportunity to begin to bridge it.

The public are already rebelling against the present two-party voting straitjacket. In the 1950s, 95 per cent of voters cast their ballots for Labour or the Conservatives. In 2010, just 65 per cent did so. The doors to political reform have been prised open by the 2010 election result, which delivered a hung parliament and the agreement to stage this referendum. Now is the time for the British people to fling those doors to a better politics wide open by rejecting apathy and voting Yes to AV.

It's good to see that The Independent is attempting to raise the debate away from narrow party interests to discuss the effect of reforms on democracy and participation overall...

Constitutional wrangling: Clegg's bid to change the UK

The BBC's Democracy Live web portal features a highly convenient roundup of current / ongoing constitutional reform...

After Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg agreed to take his party into coalition with the Conservatives, he pledged to bring in "the biggest shake-up of our democracy since 1832".
In government, he became the deputy prime minister with special responsibility for political and constitutional reform. So how are his plans progressing?

The summary page addresses the latest developments in the following areas: Fixed Term Parliaments, the AV Referendum, Boundary Changes, Lords Reform, Power of Recall, Open Primaries, the EU Bill, the Scotland Bill and Wales.

Definitely worth keeping an eye open on this particular site...

BBC News: MPs say pre-war vote by Parliament must be formalised

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12897012

BBC News: Miliband vows to 'refound' the Labour Party

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12891694

BBC News: Miliband launches cross-party alternative vote push

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12888126

David Dimbleby questions wisdom of televised party leader debates

The Guardian on Friday had a story prompted by comments made by one of last year's televised pre-election debates between the three major party leaders:

They were greeted as the most important innovation in television coverage of a general election for a generation. But David Dimbleby, the host of BBC1's flagship political programme Question Time, has questioned whether the hugely popular TV party leader debates were a good thing after all.

Dimbleby, who hosted the BBC's edition of the live head-to-heads between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg last year, used an awards ceremony on Friday to warn that people could "come to regret" the advent of the TV debates, which look set to become a permanent fixture of the UK political landscape.

"The debates certainly were an innovation. They will change the way electoral campaigns are conducted, not necessarily entirely for the better," said Dimbleby in a video message to the Broadcasting Press Guild awards in central London, where the party leader debates won the innovation prize. In one way they are odd because we don't have a presidential system in Britain. We have a parliamentary system. We don't elect prime ministers, we elect parliaments and MPs; we have after all got a coalition now," he added.

"And looking back on it we introduced the debates as the three men who want to be prime minister. What are we going to do at the next election? Maybe say the two men who want to be prime minister and the one man who wants to be deputy prime minister."

Dimbleby said he also had "doubts on another score". "I would hate it if these debates stop people taking part in the kind of thing we do on Question Time. During the campaign the party leaders come in, face the voters and make their case and face fierce criticism from them," he added.

"So as an innovation we have to be a bit cautious. It was fun to do – I was lucky to be third on, actually all I had to do was try and remember the next person to speak which wasn't always that easy. But that said it's a big innovation, a big change, an exciting event and I am really grateful for this prize. I just hope it's not one of those things that you could come to regret what you wish for."

But his concerns were batted away by Sky News's political editor Adam Boulton. "All the research shows they engage people and engage young people in the political process," said Boulton after the awards at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane.

"I don't think they distort the political process and I hope they are going to happen again," he added. "Obviously everyone has their own views. I think we would all like to experiment and innovate with the formats and do slightly different things. All that depends on having the confidence of the parties to do it."

Boulton said Dimbleby had "covered the political process for god knows how long, he obviously has some thoughts on the impact [of the debates] on the political process... It's an interesting question given his age and all that whether he is going to be around for the next election anyway."

Dimbleby's views did not appear to be shared either by the BBC's head of political programmes and analysis, Sue Inglish, who commented at the end of the Question Time presenter's recorded message: "That's very David, is it not?"

Inglish said it had been a "great honour" to be involved in organising the debates, which she said had been watched by nearly 22 million people, describing the combined audience as "quite extraordinary".

• The first ever UK televised leaders' debate, broadcast on ITV1 on 15 April last year, was watched by an average audience of 9.4 million viewers, a 37% share of the audience beating both Coronation Street and EastEnders.
• The second, broadcast across Sky News, the BBC News channel and Sky 3, had a combined audience of 4.1 million on 22 April, while the third - broadcast on BBC1 and hosted by Dimbleby - drew 8.4 million viewers.
• The debates were only made possible following prolonged negotiations between broadcasters and political parties which resulted in a 76-point pact on the format they would take place.

Worth noting as reporting the opinions of seasoned observers on a new facet of the Westminster general election process (one likely to be repeated!), as well as insights into the (passive) participation of the UK electorate in deciding a future government.

Huhne faces legal challenge over nuclear link to child cancer

The Guardian has the story today of a community worker living near proposed nuclear power stations in Lancashire who has launched an unprecedented case:

The government has ordered an expansion of the UK's nuclear programme without properly factoring in evidence that nuclear power stations cause an increase in cancer cases in children living nearby, according to a legal challenge in the high court.

The case alleges that the energy and climate secretary, Chris Huhne, did not properly review the evidence on cancer when giving the go-ahead for the expansion last year. Lawyers claim the action could delay, or even stop, the programme of new reactors.

Rory Walker, a 24-year-old community worker from Lancaster, has won legal aid to launch the unprecedented case.

Walker lives close to Heysham where two new reactors are planned, and says he is worried about having children who could suffer an increased risk of leukaemia.

....

The government has until the end of the month to make a formal response to the legal action, which will then go to a judge, who may order a hearing in London.

Do read the entire article which details an important and unprecedented current example of judicial review - the ability of the courts to scrutinise and potentially check the actions of the executive [Wikipedia summary].

BBC: MPs agree pay freeze to block 1% pay rise next year

MPs have agreed to freeze their £65,738 salaries after being asked to do so by the government. They backed a call to scrap a planned a 1% pay rise.

The Leader of the House Sir George Young were said MPs should either be in step with the country, or insulate themselves and risk public anger.

The decision angered some backbenchers, with some believing they are underpaid and others who do not agree they should have to vote on their own salary. Many have also expressed dismay at curbs placed on their expenses in the wake of the scandal over abuses.

The move will bring MPs into line with the majority of public sector workers, who have had their pay frozen for the next two years. The pay freeze came about because of the government's desire to scrap the 1% award made by the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB).

More on this story here.

PMQs: Exclusive interviews with PM, Miliband and Clegg

It’s rhetorical, blustery, dramatic and a great spectacle, but does Prime Minister’s Questions do a disservice to modern politics? Sean Dilley looks for answers across the despatch box.

totalPolitics has a fantastic series of exclusive interviews with the three current major party leaders regarding their views on Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs).

Providing valuable insights on executive scrutiny and parliamentary politics, you should: read it!

Telegraph: Interactive History of the House of Commons

The Telegraph has an interesting new feature amongst its web pages—an interactive History of the House of Commons.... A sliding scale at bottom and directional arrows allow users to click through the various leadership and governmental changes that have taken place in the Commons from 1885 through to the present day:

Definitely worth a look!

BBC News: Clegg coalition rule 'to be dropped' from cabinet guide

BBC News Online has the latest news from proceedings of the Commons' political and constitutional reform committee:

Nick Clegg's rule for hung parliament talks should not be included in a new Cabinet guide to how the UK government works, Sir Gus O'Donnell told MPs. As leader of the UK's third biggest party, Mr Clegg said he would speak first to the party which won the most votes if no party won a majority.

It is referred to in a draft version of the Cabinet Manual - a bid to compile unwritten conventions of government. Civil service chief Sir Gus said it was not a convention and should be removed.

When last year's general election resulted in a hung Parliament, there was much focus on Mr Clegg, who faced the choice of talking to both Labour and the Conservatives about a possible coalition deal.

Mr Clegg's party ended up talking to both, but initially he chose to enter negotiations with the Conservatives - with whom the Liberal Democrats eventually entered a coalition - saying that the party that "has won the most votes and the most seats, if not an absolute majority, has the first right to seek to govern".

That was at odds with some Labour figures who said that, as sitting prime minister, Gordon Brown should make the first attempt at forming a coalition.

On Thursday Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus was questioned by the Commons' political and constitutional reform committee, about efforts to compile rules and unwritten conventions in one manual.

The UK does not have a written constitution - instead relying on accumulated statutes, conventions and rulings.

Consultation is under way on a draft version of the manual, drawn up by civil servants. One draft chapter on the processes for forming a government in the event of a Hung Parliament was published in February 2010 - and Sir Gus said it had been useful.

But he said he was intending to remove a reference in the overall draft version to Nick Clegg's decision, as leader of the third largest party when the general election resulted in a hung parliament, to talk first to the party which won the most votes and seats.

BBC: Cut in ministers urged to 'strengthen Parliament'

It will be interesting to see what the Coalition Government does with this proposal, reported today in BBC News Online:

MPs are calling for a reduction in the number of ministers after the next election, to "strengthen the independence" of Parliament.

The cross-party Public Administration Select Committee said the size of government should fall in line with the cut in MP numbers planned after 2015. Tory MP Bernard Jenkin, the committee's chairman, said many ministers were not "using their time effectively".

The Commons rejected the idea of a ministerial cut in a recent vote.

The size of the Commons will fall by 50 to 600 MPs after the next election, due in 2015, under government plans to reduce the cost of politics. But the committee is worried that the influence of the so-called "payroll vote" - the number of ministers and parliamentary aides required to support the government in Commons votes - will rise if there is not a commensurate fall in the number of ministers.

The cross-party committee says there should be eight fewer ministers after the next election and is urging a reduction from 46 to 26 in the number of parliamentary private secretaries (PPSs) - ministerial aides who represent the lowest rung of government.

Mr Jenkin said the proposal - which would limit PPS numbers to one per government department - was "very modest and easily achievable".

Read the rest. Interesting for us vis à vis the relative strength between Parliament and the Executive, the structure of the Executive branch of government and the role of MPs within Parliament.

BBC News: Wales says Yes in referendum vote

Significant news from the Celtic segments of the UK today, as the official results of the Welsh Referendum held yesterday were announced on BBC News Online:

Wales has said a resounding "Yes" in the referendum on direct law-making powers for the assembly.

When the last result was declared, all 22 counties except one - Monmouthshire - backed change. Turnout is provisionally put at 35%.

The final result saw 517,132 vote Yes, and 297,380 say No - a 63.5% to 36.5% winning margin.

The vote will give the assembly direct law-making power in 20 devolved areas, such as health and education.

BBC News: Boundary Commission launches constituency review

BBC News Scotland brings news from north of the English border, an area in which significant changes are now expected—but where some special provisions are also to be made—under the recently-passed Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011:

A major shake-up of MPs' constituencies is under way in Scotland.

The move follows new rules introduced by the UK government, which will cut the number of Westminster constituencies in Scotland from 59 to 52.

The Boundary Commission for Scotland, which is conducting the review, said widespread change was now necessary. The number of constituencies in the UK is being cut from 650 to 600 in time for the next general election.

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats both made promises in their manifestos to cut the number of seats at Westminster.

The changes, stemming from the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, mean constituency boundaries must be redrawn so that the number of electors is spread more evenly across parliamentary seats. The government bill was steered through parliament by Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg who said it would mean "the value of your vote will no longer depend on where you live, and with fewer MPs the cost of politics will be cut".

Under the new rules, the average electorate per constituency in the UK has been set at 76,641, and each constituency must be within 5% of that quota. As a result, the smallest permitted electorate is 72,810, while the largest is 80,473.

However, exceptions to these limits apply to Na h-Eileanan an Iar (the Western Isles), Orkney Islands and Shetland Islands council areas. Exceptions can also be made for very sparsely populated areas if constituencies are larger than 12,000 sq km.

The balance of the article outlines the predictably varying reception of this news by different political groups in Scotland. It will be interesting to see how the Boundary Commission makes its decisions, particularly as Scotland has been (and probably will remain) an area accused of over-representation in the past... (NB: The coloured map above shows results from the 2005 election).

BBC: What will Wales powers referendum result mean?

BBC News Online today published a useful analysis by Roger Scully, Professor of Political Science and Director of the Institute of Welsh Politics, on what the significance of either a "Yes" or a "No" vote would have for Welsh politics and political devolution in the UK. As it seems likely that the Welsh electorate will indeed vote "Yes", I have placed an edited version of Prof. Scully's analysis of a "Yes" vote below:

If... Wales votes Yes, the direct result will be a substantial increase in the Welsh Assembly's legislative powers.

At present, the Assembly has powers over 20 broad policy areas, including health, education, the environment and transport, but it must ask Parliament for primary law-making powers on a case-by-case basis. If Wales votes Yes, the assembly could then pass laws without first having to gain the consent of Westminster.

What is done with those powers, though, will depend greatly on the outcome of May's election, and any coalition negotiations that may follow. Understandably, the parties will have rather different agendas and priorities.

But the implications of a Yes vote do not stop there. A substantial Yes vote would give a more general boost to the standing of the Welsh Assembly.

The outcome of the 1997 referendum, where devolution scraped through by a narrow majority on a low turnout, continues to be used by some to challenge the legitimacy of the institution. Many both inside and outside Wales took 1997 to show that the Welsh are pretty ambivalent about devolution. Survey evidence suggests that public attitudes have moved a long way since 1997 - but real votes would be much harder evidence yet.

Second, taken together, a more powerful Welsh Assembly and the Westminster government's planned reduction in Welsh MPs from 40 to 30 would likely produce a distinct shift in Wales's political centre of gravity. What goes on in London would still matter for Wales. But rather more of Welsh political life would tend to focus on Cardiff Bay.

Third, some consequences of a Yes might extend well beyond Wales. A more powerful Welsh Assembly would reduce, though not eliminate, the asymmetries in devolution across the minority nations of the UK. This might lead to a renewed focus on devolution's major remaining anomaly - the position of England.

And the boost to the standing of the Assembly and its ministers from a Yes might have consequences for Wales' weight in on-going discussions about revisions to the Barnett Formula that governs the block-grants given to the devolved bodies.