BBC News: MPs say new individual voter system has real risks

BBC News today presents news of the broad findings of the Parliamentary committee examining the Coalition government's proposals for changing the system of voter registration:

Changes to the way people register to vote could "damage democracy" by resulting in large numbers dropping off the electoral roll, MPs have warned. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee says there are "real risks" involved in the planned change from household to individual registration. The MPs want it to be an offence for individuals not to register to vote.

The government says it is "putting safeguards in place" to prevent people dropping off the electoral roll.

Currently, the head of a household can be fined up to £1,000 for failing to register all eligible voters at his or her property. The government wants to switch to a system in which individuals register themselves, but does not think there should be a similar legal penalty for those who fail to do so.

The committee's report says it welcomes the principle of individual elector registration (IER), but believes there is a danger that the number of people registered to vote could fall significantly if it is implemented in the way the government plans. It says some people may choose to opt out for reasons like avoiding jury duty, and warns that urban areas, with a rapid population turnover, are likely to be the worst affected.

In Northern Ireland, where IER is already in place, failing to register to vote is an offence and the committee says the same should be true in the rest of the UK. It suggests that penalty could be phased out after five years once the new system has bedded down.

The potential problem of voter drop-out could be compounded, the MPs say, by the government's decision not to hold an annual canvass in 2014. The report says this could lead to inaccuracies in the electoral roll for 2015 and also have "a marked and potentially partisan effect on the parliamentary constituency boundaries" for 2020 which will be based on that roll.

The chairman of the committee, Labour's Graham Allen, said: "Getting individuals to take responsibility for their own votes is the right thing to do, but it needs to be done in the right way.

"The transition to individual registration will only be a true success if the electoral rolls become not only more accurate but also more complete.

"The amendments which we propose - especially on the 2014 canvass and on not opting out - are essential if IER is to command public confidence and not to be seen as unfair and politically partisan."

A Cabinet Office spokesman said the move to IER would modernise the electoral system and help to combat fraud. "We are putting safeguards in place to stop people dropping off the register, as well as looking at ways we can increase registration levels," he said.

"Under the new system, everyone will be invited to register in 2014 and will receive a number of reminders - if they do not respond they will then be visited at their home by an electoral registration officer to ask them to register.

"In addition, there will be publicity to make people aware of the change and we are looking at opening up new ways of registering, including online registration."

Under Labour there were plans to introduce IER from 2015 at the earliest, but the coalition's plan to bring it forward to 2014 for new voters is designed to save £74m. But Labour argues that accelerating the process risks disenfranchising millions.

Deputy leader Harriet Harman told the party's conference in September the Tories were "hoping" that "if they take away the right to vote from students, young people living in rented flats in our cities, people from ethnic minority communities" it will help their chances of re-election.

BBC News: Can UK political parties be saved from extinction?

This is the dilemma explored by Brian Wheeler, BBC News' political editor, in an article published today:

Political party membership appears to be in terminal decline in the UK - so can anything be done to reverse the trend? And does it matter?

It was once a source of cultural identity and pride for millions of British people. But at just over 1% of the population - low by European standards - party membership is fast becoming a minority pursuit. There are more members of the Caravan Club, or the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, than of all Britain's political parties put together.

There are many theories as to why this has happened. The public have grown cynical and disillusioned with politicians. We live in a more individualistic age (Why rely on political leaders to speak for you when you can do it yourself on Twitter or Facebook?). Politics itself has become too boring and managerial - the ideological red meat loved by the "party faithful" is in short supply.

There have also been profound changes in the way Britons spend their spare time, since the days when the local Labour, Conservative or Liberal club was at the heart of the community.

"Most people don't use politics for socialising in the way they might have done in the fifties and sixties, when you had a realistic chance of meeting your future husband or wife at a party dinner or dance.

"There may be the odd exception, but that really isn't the case any more," says Jonathan Isaby, former co-editor of Conservative Home, a popular website for Tory supporters.

Even those drawn to political activism can find party politics a bit strange and off-putting, preferring instead to join one of the many single issue campaigns that now exist.

"I sometimes drag my wife along to political events but she hates going because she thinks they are all a load of oddballs," said one prominent single issue campaigner, who did not want to be named.

"Politics is conducted in a very specific way in the UK that doesn't really chime with the rest of the country."

It is not all gloom - there are still many thriving local party associations around the country. And new parties, such as the Greens, UKIP, the SNP and Plaid Cymru, have sprung up over the years to cater to the increasingly diverse political tastes of the British public.

But - with the exception of the SNP in Scotland - the big three Westminster parties still dominate in terms of membership and influence. And unless they can find a way of breathing new life into their moribund structures, British democracy could soon find itself on the critical list.

Labour leader Ed Miliband has made rebuilding his party a top priority. The membership will vote next month on a series of proposals - from discount membership fees to making local parties more "welcoming" - aimed at Refounding Labour. Mr Miliband wants to transform the party into a modern, outward-looking organisation, less in thrall to a rulebook that has not changed much since the party was founded in 1918. He believes local parties should become more like community action groups - forging links with other voluntary organisations. Labour's annual conference could be opened up to campaign groups and charities - who will be allowed to speak from the floor in debates (but not to vote on policies).

But the proposals have not gone down well with some Labour members. They are particularly upset that members of a planned Labour "supporters network" could get the right to vote in leadership elections. What, they argue, is the point of paying a subscription fee - which at £41 is currently the highest of the main three parties - if you do not get some privileges?

The Conservatives have also thrown the party open to non-members and supporters - as well as launching a more conventional recruitment drive.

"I think many find the idea of committing themselves to one party for life a bit scary," says Jonathan Isaby, who recently joined the Taxpayers Alliance pressure group as its political director. "There are a lot of people who don't want to sign on the dotted line to join a party, but who are equally happy to help out by delivering leaflets for a particular candidate they want to support. And that can be just as useful as donating money, if not more so."

David Cameron's party is also trying to get members involved in policy formation - a process that had effectively died out - and it has pioneered the use of "open primaries" to select Tory election candidates.

The Lib Dems have also been opening up their party structures and meetings to non-members.

Some commentators, such as Mark Pack, of the grassroots Lib Dem Voice website, believe parties need to broaden their support base in this way to avoid becoming unrepresentative of the public at large. "There is a point at which you have to see the membership as atypical," he says.

This matters because party members can still have a big influence on government policy as well as getting to choose the party leaders and even, in certain circumstances, the prime minister.

For all their overblown rhetoric - and nothing attracts overblown rhetoric like party recruitment drives - the big parties have effectively given up on becoming mass membership organisations. There will be no return to the 1950s.

What we might be witnessing instead is the birth of a new kind of political party. Not so much a religion to be followed by faithful, as a pastime to be pursued once or twice a year, when other commitments allow.

Not unlike the Caravan Club, in fact...

PARTY MEMBERSHIP

• 1951 Conservative 2.9m - Labour 876,000
• 1971 Conservative 1.3m - Labour 700,000
• 1981 Conservative 1.2m - Labour 277,000
• 1991 Conservative 1m to 0.5m - Labour 261,000 - Lib Dem 91,000
• 2001 Conservative 311,000 - Labour 272,000 - Lib Dem 73,000
• 2011 Conservative 177,000 - Labour 190,000 - Lib Dem - 66,000

(Source: Estimates based on party reports and House of Commons Library)

MEMBERSHIP FEES

• Labour - £41 standard, £20.50 unwaged and pensioners, £1 youth, £20.50 (union or affiliate group member)
• Conservatives - £25 standard, £5 (under 23)
• Lib Dem - £12 standard, £6 students and unwaged

MPs set to debate public's petition demands

BBC News brings news of an interesting development—long-talked about, now coming to some fruition—that might work to enhance British democracy and participation:

Campaigners who gather more than 100,000 petition signatures could have their ideas debated in Parliament, via a newly launched government website.

The e-petitions site, which will ask the public for proposals, is aimed at "building confidence" in MPs' work.

House of Commons leader Sir George Young said politicians could not afford to be complacent and had to give a "megaphone" to people's concerns. But Labour has said the petitions could lead to debates on "crazy ideas".

The system, launched on Friday, replaces the existing e-petitions pages on the Downing Street website, set up under Tony Blair. It allows popular petitions to be discussed by the backbench business committee of MPs, which has the power to propose debates on non-government matters.

But some proposals, including those judged to be "libellous or offensive" or "related to honours and appointments" will be barred from the website. Posting more than one petition on a single subject is also banned.

Sir George, a Conservative, said: "Today's launch represents another step towards a more accessible and transparent Parliament." He added: "In recent weeks, Parliament has been at the centre of public interest, by leading the debate on phone-hacking allegations.

"But this shouldn't mean that Parliament becomes complacent. There's much more that we can do to build confidence in the work of the House of Commons and we should continue to find new ways of encouraging people to engage.

"The public already have many opportunities to make their voices heard in Parliament, and this new system of e-petitions could give them a megaphone."

However, Sir George said: "Of course, parliamentary time is not unlimited and we want the best e-petitions to be given airtime - so we will monitor the site closely over the coming months to assess whether the 100,000 figure is an appropriate target."

Deputy Leader of the House, Lib Dem MP David Heath, said: "The e-petitions website is the latest example of how the coalition is continuing to take forward its programme for government.

"It underscores our commitment to reform of the parliamentary process, and will help to reinforce the aim of greater engagement by people in the politics of this country."

Petitions will be moderated by government departments, with oversight from the Office of the Leader of the Commons. The plans were first set out in the Conservatives' 2010 election manifesto.

Petitions were introduced to the Downing Street website by Tony Blair. The most popular, with more than 1.8 million people in support, opposed road pricing. More than 70,000 backed the one-word suggestion that Gordon Brown should "resign". And almost 50,000 signed up to the idea that TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson should become prime minister.

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...

Tony Benn: 'Protest is vital to a thriving democracy'

Today in The Independent veteran politician Tony Benn argues the case for active (but not violent!) protest as being essential to UK democracy, making a potent appeal to history:

No government likes to find itself faced with demonstrations against its policies and as these recent pictures show, there are plenty of disillusioned citizens across Europe right now. Over Britain's long history, many significant gains have been brought about by such demonstrations – as with the recognition of trade unions, the campaign for the vote by the Chartists, and for votes for women by the Suffragettes.

Each of these campaigns was denounced at the time as violent. But it's interesting to see exactly how they unfolded. To begin with, the demonstrations are ignored; if they continue, they're described as absurd, and then if they persist, they are described as violent and the people responsible may be imprisoned.

Then comes a pause as public opinion realigns itself to support the changes being demanded. Once the government has finally got the message, you can't find anyone who doesn't claim to have supported the demands in the first place.

It's not possible to find anyone now who was opposed to the recognition of trade unions or to the principle of one woman, one vote. Yet it was only a committed group of campaigners who actually brought these changes about. There's no justification for violence – if protesters resort to it, it can turn public opinion against the cause.

Remember the way that public opinion shifted in support of men such as Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. Both are now regarded as heroes for the sacrifices they made to defend human rights. There is hardly any support now for the Vietnam war and public opinion is strongly opposed to the Afghan war.

This all goes to prove the importance of demonstrations and popular campaigns for peace, human rights and democracy.

We must expect far more demonstrations in the future and they must be seen as an integral part of political action in a democratic society. Without them, injustices would continue unchallenged and people would lose confidence in the democratic process by which such injustices are changed.

It's worth reading the whole piece.

BBC: Convicted prisoners to get vote after European ruling

Thousands of convicted UK prisoners are to get the right to vote after the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the present ban was unlawful.

Prime Minister David Cameron was said to have reluctantly accepted that there was no way of maintaining the 140-year-old ban on sentenced prisoners voting in general elections, according to BBC political correspondent Reeta Chakrabarti.

However, he will resist allowing to vote those prisoners who have committed the most serious offences, our correspondent adds.

Read the full story—an important update to the Unit 1 topic, Democracy and Political Participation that examiners might expect you to know about... (Yes, once again, the textbooks have been outdated!)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11671164