Campaign for Conservative Democracy

Stop Press

 

COPOV Forum 11am, 10th December, Gerrards Cross

 

Political parties could get more state funding to make up for donation caps

Tories argue that they would lose a third of their income under the proposals, but the Lib Dems are strong supporters

Nick Clegg, who is responsible for party political reform, says he is determined to come up with an acceptable formula.

A huge increase in state funding of political parties, worth up to £100m over a five-year parliament, is being proposed by a government-commissioned inquiry.

The funding, which would be shared out according to the number of votes each party receives in a general election, would be presented as a way of compensating them for a huge loss of income as a result of introducing new caps on individual donations to parties. It would also be seen as a way of repackaging state funding that already goes to opposition parties.

The Tories have argued that a £50,000 cap on individual donations would see their party lose as much as a third of its donor income.

The state funding idea has been pushed hardest by the Liberal Democrats, who currently have the least independent income and are likely to benefit the most from the proposals. The party has had to lay off staff and sell its HQ to cut costs.

The draft report is proposing that parties receive funding worth £3 per vote they receive. On the basis of the last election, the Tories would get £32m, Labour £25.8m and the Lib Dems £20.4m. The figures could be higher if tax relief were added.

One idea proposed by the recent Power Inquiry and supported by LibDem leader Nick Clegg was for voter vouchers allowing voters to tick a box saying they wanted £3 state funding to be given to the party for which they are voting. Those familiar with the report suggest the proposal is not in the draft.Critics are likely to argue that such a degree of state funding would provoke public uproar and make it harder for small parties to break the stranglehold of the big three. But it would also act as an incentive for parties to get their vote out in seats that they are not likely to win. State funding is seen by most sides as the only way to reduce dependence on big backers.

In the wake of the expenses scandal, the Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude said the public appetite for state funding of political parties had largely evaporated, but he conceded it might be acceptable if it was seen as part of a package.

Attempts by the Brown government to secure a cross-party consensus on party funding collapsed amid a welter of recrimination and accusations of bad faith.

Nick Clegg, who is responsible for party political reform, said he was determined to try again and asked the Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly, to come up with a new formula acceptable to parties and public. All sides accept there is a need to take the perception of big money out of politics.

After a 17-month inquiry, a chairman's draft was presented to the committee on 15 September, but amendments from the parties are being drafted this weekend as they scramble to maintain their positions. The committee includes a representative from each of the three main parties and six independent members.

The Tories made a last-minute intervention, saying they could not accept a donation cap set as low as £10,000 – the figure proposed by the Liberal Democrats in their election manifesto.

Lord Feldman of Elstree, the Tories' co-chairman, said in a letter to the committee that the cap had to be £50,000 and even this would mean the loss of 37% of the party's donor income. He claimed: "A cap of £10,000 would hugely inhibit the ability of political parties to engage with the electorate."

The Conservatives are also continuing to press for a requirement that union members opt into affiliating to the Labour party, rather than the current system where they are required to opt out.

In Northern Ireland, where the opt-in system exists, only 35% of people do so – suggesting two thirds of union affiliation income to Labour would evaporate.

Labour has previously accepted that the system needed improvement. The Tories claim Labour receives a large proportion of donations from people who are not making a positive decision to contribute to the party.

The report is expected to recommend a small decrease in the current £20m cap on party election expenditure. The Tories outspent Labour by more than two to one at the last election. There may, however, be new caps on local election expenditure, caps that would be easier to police in the context of a fixed term parliament.

Democratic Audit told the inquiry on the basis of the Electoral Commission's register of donations, from 1 January

2001-30 June 2010, donations of £50,001 or more accounted for 41% of Liberal Democrat income, 54% of Conservative and 76% of Labour party declared donation income. The committee is likely to defend its proposals on the basis that state funding already exists but it is a patchwork including policy development grants, Short money paid to opposition parties, and indirect subsidies.

This is a disgraceful proposal.   Why should the British public finance parties controlled by oligarchies?

Royal equality act will end succession of first born male - rather than older sister

Commonwealth leaders will pledge to amend legislation dating back to the 17th century to allow daughters of the monarch to take precedence over younger sons in the line of succession.

David Cameron will hail the agreement of the 16 Queen's realms, the Commonwealth countries where the Queen serves as head of state, to amend "outdated" rules that also prevent a potential monarch from marrying a Catholic.

The prime minister will introduce legislation in Britain before the next general election to ensure that the changes will apply to any children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Officials say the changes will apply even if a child is born before the new legislation is passed.

Speaking before the opening of the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Perth, where the agreement will be sealed, Cameron said: "These rules are outdated and need to change."

In a meeting in Perth this morning, to be chaired by the Australian prime minister, Julia Gillard, the leaders of the 16 Queen's realms will agree to amend rules that currently say:

• An elder daughter should be placed behind a younger son in the line of succession.

The order of succession will in future be determined by the order of birth. The immediate impact will place the Princess Royal, the Queen's daughter, fourth in the line of succession behind the Prince of Wales and his two sons. At the moment the princess is 10th. The Duke of York, who is fourth, will drop to seventh.

• Anyone who marries a Roman Catholic is barred from succeeding to the crown.

This will end. The change will not affect the position of the monarch as the supreme governor of the Church of England, because Catholics will still be barred from the throne. The Church of England will remain as the established church.

• Descendants of King George II need the monarch's consent to marry.

This will be reformed.

Cameron will tell the meeting: "The idea that a younger son should become monarch instead of an elder daughter, simply because he is a man, just is not acceptable any more.

"Nor does it make any sense that a potential monarch can marry someone of any faith other than Catholic.

"The thinking behind these rules is wrong. That's why people have been talking about changing them for some time. We need to get on and do it."

Downing Street has noted what would have happened if the rules had been different at key moments:

• Margaret Tudor would have succeeded Henry VII in 1509, denying the throne to her younger brother, who became Henry VIII. That raises the prospect that Henry VIII would not have been responsible for the greatest example of Euroscepticism: the break with Rome in 1533.

• Elizabeth Stuart, the Winter Queen of Bohemia, would have succeeded her father James I in 1625 instead of Charles I. The civil war, in which Charles was executed, might have been avoided.

• Queen Victoria's daughter, Princess Victoria, would have succeeded in January 1901, rather than Edward VII. The new queen would have died less than seven months later, handing the throne to Kaiser Wilhelm II. Britain would have been ruled by the German emperor during the first world war.

The announcement in Perth comes after Cameron wrote last month to the other leaders calling for change. Legislation will have to be introduced in Britain and some of the other 15 realms to amend laws including the Bill of Rights 1688, the Act of Settlement 1700, the Act of Union with Scotland 1706 and the Coronation Oaths Act 1688.

Primary legislation will be necessary in Antigua, Canada and Saint Lucia. Papua New Guinea and Tuvalu will not need to enact their own legislation.

Gordon Brown was keen to introduce the reforms but did not feel he could set aside enough parliamentary time.

Earlier this year Cameron played down the prospect of an imminent change in the rules of royal succession, partly because of concerns that constitutional tinkering could revive the campaign in Australia for it to become a republic.

But Downing Street believes that the Queen's diamond jubilee next year and the marriage of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in April show it is time to "secure a breakthrough".

Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, also supports the change. "If Prince William and Catherine Middleton were to have a baby daughter as their first child, I think most people would think it fair and normal that she would eventually become queen of our country," he said this year.

Buckingham Palace is understood to be supportive. One No 10 source said: "Downing Street has been working on this for five years. Buckingham Palace will not have been taken by surprise. This will welcome the crown into the modern age."

The changes have to be introduced by all 16 realms at the same time. Failure to amend the legislation in one or more could lead to a situation in which there were different monarchs, possibly both from the House of Windsor, in different countries.

A working group, to be chaired by New Zealand, will co-ordinate the legislation to make sure it is acceptable to all countries.

Cameron has been astonished that it has taken so long to amend such antiquated legislation. In 1955, when Anthony Eden succeeded Winston Churchill, a civil service brief concluded that it was time for a change.

The brief said: "It is unsatisfactory that personal and constitutional questions of such high importance should still depend on the operation of an 18th-century statute which was admittedly passed hurriedly, and in the face of considerable opposition, to deal with an ad hoc situation created largely by the unsatisfactory conduct of King George III's brothers."

Successive governments have failed to act. In 1964 the then home secretary, Henry Brooke, declined to "proceed with legislation … at the moment" because of the challenge in winning agreement with other realms.

The bar on marrying a Catholic meant that Prince Michael of Kent, the grandson of George V, had to forfeit his place in the line of succession in 1978 when he married an Austrian Catholic, now Princess Michael of Kent. Autumn Phillips, the wife of the Queen's grandson Peter, converted to Anglicanism from Catholicism to preserve her husband's position in the line of succession. He is currently 11th in line but will jump to fifth when the first changes are introduced.

The leaders' group will also debate a report recommending that homosexuality should be legalised across the Commonwealth. Peter Tatchell, a gay rights campaigner, said last week that 40 Commonwealth countries still criminalise homosexuality.

Expert view: Paul Lay

In our age of gender equality and religious tolerance there will be no further hindrance to an elder daughter succeeding to the crown before her younger brothers. Yet in one of those contingencies that makes history such a delight, the three most successful monarchs to have ascended to the English and then British throne have all been women.

Elizabeth I only gained the crown because her elder half-sister, Mary – a woman and a Catholic – died young and childless. She in turn had only become the first queen of England because there were no males left in the Tudor line once young Edward VI passed on in 1553. Three centuries later, Victoria, less glamorous but more fertile, was to preside over the high noon of empire. The present incumbent, currently enjoying adulation in the antipodes, personifies dignity and cool judgment. Things could have turned out worse. They could also have turned out better.

The Act of Settlement was passed by parliament and signed on 12 June 1701 by William III, a childless widower pushing 50, in poor health and largely immune to female charm. The question of succession had become desperate owing to the death in July 1700 of the 11-year-old William, Duke of Gloucester, the only surviving son of the heir to the throne, Princess Anne.

The exiled Stuarts may have been the divisive agents of a bloody civil war, and papists to boot, but they had male heirs, and James Francis Edward Stuart, the Old Pretender, was ready to pounce, with the aid of Louis XIV of France, who acknowledged him as James III. Had English rulers taken a more enlightened view of gender issues they might not have got into such a mess. Charles I, the fount of all the troubles of the 17th century, had an elder sister, Elizabeth, the Winter Queen of Bohemia and heroine of Protestant Europe.

Having endured decades of religious and political turmoil, and fearful for the Protestant succession, it was to the descendants of this Stuart that William III's supporters went in search of a monarch to keep the other Stuarts out. They wanted the young elector George Lewis of Hanover, Elizabeth's grandson. He didn't speak English but was a Protestant and hated the French – qualifications suffice to make him king.

George and his Hanoverian successors were never popular and the monarchy was at a low ebb when Victoria ascended to the throne in 1837 in the absence of legitimate male candidates. Though the elderly Victoria came to symbolise a dowdy puritanism, the early years of her reign were marked by scandal and assassination attempts. Even her saintly consort Prince Albert only became popular after his premature death. But she made female rule acceptable.

Victoria's eldest child was also female and also named Victoria. She may well have proved a wiser monarch than her younger brother, the corpulent and foolish Edward VII, had she been allowed to succeed in January 1901. His love affair with France (or, at least its women) helped forge the entente cordiale with devastating consequences for Anglo-German relations, until then rather good.

Princess Victoria also happened to be the Empress of Germany and Queen of Prussia and would have united the crowns of the greatest military and industrial powers of the age. Her son, Kaiser Wilhelm II, would have been King William V, the first and second world wars would never have happened and we would all be driving top-of-the-range Audis and embracing low levels of personal debt.

Paul Lay is editor of History Today


October 23rd

Cameron consults Commonwealth on royal succession reforms

Prime minister proposes males should no longer take precedence as heir to the crown, starting with next generation

Any daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge would take precedence over younger brothers in the line of succession, under David Cameron's proposals.

David Cameron has written to Commonwealth leaders proposing that the law be changed so that males should no longer automatically take precedence as successor to the crown.

The proposed law change would apply to any children produced by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, even if a child was born before the revised law had reached the statute book. An elder daughter would therefore take precedence before a son.

In his letter, sent last month, Cameron wrote: "We espouse gender equality in all other aspects of life and it is an anomaly that in the rules relating to the highest public office we continue to enshrine male superiority."

The prime minister had previously played down the prospect of a change in the rules of royal succession amid concerns that constitutional tinkering could spark a fresh campaign in Australia for it to become a republic.

Cameron is also proposing that Catholics should continue to be debarred from being head of state, but that anyone who marries a Catholic should not be debarred. The family would be entitled to bring up their children as Catholics as long as heirs do not seek to take the throne as a Catholic.

"This rule is a historical anomaly – it does not, for example, bar those who marry spouses of other faiths – and we do not think it can continue to be justified," Cameron wrote.

The head of state is in communion with the Church of England under the Act of Settlement. The Roman Catholic church forbids that communion. Successive governments have looked at the issue and reflected on the anachronistic nature of British laws, but Cameron is taking the process further by tabling the plans ahead of the Commonwealth summit in Perth this month.

Cameron is also proposing the abolition of legislation that requires descendants of George II to seek the approval of the monarch before they marry if they are below the age of 25. In practice there may be thousands of married descendants of George II in the UK who may be unaware that they should have first sought such approval.

There is a broad hope at No 10 that the 16 Commonwealth heads of state would at minimum agree in principle to consult their domestic parliaments on the proposals.

The legal changes would require wide-ranging reform to UK laws including the Bill of Rights 1688, the Act of Settlement 1700, the Act of Union with Scotland 1706 and the Coronation Oaths Act 1688.

Cameron now needs to consult with countries including Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Saint Lucia.

Downing Street said the royal wedding in April and the Queen's diamond's jubilee had put the issue of male primogeniture back into the spotlight.

Andrew Boff: The removal of the clauses from the Localism Bill allowing local people to originate policy, is a victory for the political class, not the public

Andrew Boff is a Conservative member of the London Assembly.

My faith in the radicalism of our party was rejuvenated when I read “Control Shift”, the party's green paper on localism in 2009. I was even more heartened when many of its provisions made their way into the Localism bill. Last night the LibDems eviscerated it in the House of Lords.

The removal of the clauses from the Localism Bill to allow for local referenda means that the political class, through its agents the LibDems, has scored a victory over the people. The clauses would have allowed residents, on securing a petition of 5% of the electorate, to force local referenda on local authorities which, whilst admittedly only advisory at this point, would have been one small step in putting a hand break on the excesses of elective dictatorships up and down the country. It would also have given the people the chance to originate policy rather than just be dependent on what a party puts in its manifesto.

If ever there was any doubt that we are in coalition with a bunch of statist control freaks then LibDem Lord Greaves, who proposed the amendment in the Lords last night, removed it completely. The irony of his hatchet job coming directly after a debate which bemoaned the lack of involvement of young people in politics was beyond parody.

He criticised the clauses because they “Would be open to people demanding large numbers of referendums on all kinds of things that the council would find extremely difficult to refuse to hold.” Duh! That's the POINT. If people don't want the question put or they think they've had too many already, then they don't sign the petition. If their Council is out of touch with what the people want then there will be plenty. It's up to them. The right of initiative has not resulted in vast number of questions being put in Switzerland and the states of the US that trust the people enough to have had such provisions for many years.

He went on - “Councils already have the powers to hold referendums when they choose to do so” Don't you get geddit m'Lud? What about when the people want to hold a referendum on an issue that they choose in one of the many local authorities which are one party states? Who the hell are local councillors if they are not servants of the people rather than their masters.

He was seconded by another good reason for the abolition of the Upper House, Lord Tope, who, wearing his smugness like a starlet wears a mink, said “I personally believe that there are better ways of testing public opinion fairly than using the very suspect means of a referendum” Suspect, I suspect, because they might disagree with the noble lord's 'progressive' leanings.

LibDems think their democratic credentials are boosted by their belief in PR once every four or five years at elections. They also think that the electorate are a bunch of ignorant bigots who can't be trusted to formulate a cogent opinion. Our party's credentials must be the belief in real democracy between elections. The Tory party is about liberation or it is nothing.

I'm bitterly disappointed that we didn't win this one and it will take an enormous amount of self control on my part to not spit in the eye of the next LibDem who tells me they “trust the people.”

|


October 9th

This was a party conference without party members

By Tim Montgomerie
Follow Tim on Twitter.

This morning I want to briefly focus on the fact that there were hundreds of empty seats at the back of the hall for Cameron's speech. I've never known this before. In previous years it's been standing room only. In the early years of Blair's premiership the Labour Party organised overflow events in cinemas so delegates could watch the leader's speech.

There are all sorts of reasons for this but one big explanation is the huge cost of now going to Tory Conference.

ConservativeHome questioned nearly 400 people attending Tory Conference and asked them to estimate the costs of attendance. After removing the 25 lowest and 25 highest estimates in each category we arrived at the following numbers:

Registration fee: £80
+
Travel: £71.90
+
Accommodation: £258.97
+
Eating: £117.19
+
Drinking: £86.48
+
Other: £107.96
=
TOTAL: £722.50

Of course no person has to spend £86 on drink in four days but alcohol isn’t cheap in the conference bars. More significantly many costs are unavoidable. The conference fee, the travel, the accommodation. Veteran party democracy campaigner John Strafford recommends that the fee for attending conference be cut to £20 to encourage more member involvement. Others have suggested we go back to seaside locations like Blackpool. The facilities may not be so good as in Manchester or Birmingham but B&Bs on the Lancashire coast are a lot more affordable for ordinary party members.

I was told by Tory HQ that only 4,000 of the 11,500 people attending the conference were grassroots members. One Conservative minister actually claimed that the number was closer to 2,000 than 4,000. Matthew Parris told me that he struggled to find Tory activists when he went round the exhibition hall trying to make a video. At fringe event after fringe event (with the exception of Simon Richards' brilliant Freedom Zone) 70% and more of questions are asked by NGOs, business representatives and journalists. The party makes a huge profit from conference but it is a great shame that it's now hard for ordinary members to afford to come to what should be a festival of politics. I've had talks in the last few days about ConservativeHome setting up an affordable and very political centre right conference where we bring together conservative historians, academics, journalists and elected representatives to discuss big ideas. Watch this space.

A Conference with no members?

by

John Strafford

At my first Conservative Party conference:

·         There was no registration fee.

·         The seaside bed and breakfast hotel cost £20 per night.

·         We had motions for debate.

·         All motions submitted were published in the Conference handbook.

            All this has gone.   If the costs of attending conference continue to increase we will soon have a conference with no members.

            7,500 of those attending conference claim their costs on expenses (Media, lobbyists, etc.)   The 4,000 members pay out of their own pocket.

            Last year the Party made £1.7 million profit on conferences.    The Party should reduce the registration fee to £20 for members.   It will still make £1.5 million profit.

            Party Chairmen: ACTION THIS DAY

A view of the Tory Party Conference

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/05/conservative-party-conference?INTCMP=SRCH


October 2nd

Why the Electoral Commission disagrees with Harman on voter registration

by www.politics.co.uk

Voter registration isn't the most straightforward of matters

Thursday, 29 September 2011 2:50 PM

Harriet Harman wrapped up today's Labour conference with a speech attacking the coalition's planned voter registration changes. What she didn't mention is that the independent Electoral Commission is broadly in favour of the idea.

I've been going through its submission to the Commons' political and constitutional reform committee, in which it states, in no uncertain terms:

"The Electoral Commission is clear that introducing IER is the right thing to do, because of the need:

• to improve the security of the system, making it less vulnerable to fraud

• to recognise people's personal responsibility for this important stake in our democracy

• for a system that people recognise as up-to-date, not rooted in Victorian ideas about households and 'heads of household'"

Labour say the changes are yet another form of partisan meddling with the constitution, exactly the sort of tinkering which I've pledged to make this blog about. They're worried because it's clear the changes will hit their vote: the socially disadvantaged are likely to fall off the electoral register. This could have a knock-on impact on boundary changes, as I've already noted.

But it seems there are real arguments for changing the system. The Electoral Commission says the UK is one of the only countries in the world not to have adopted a system based on registration by individuals. This may be something to do with the fact it has remained the same since the Victorian period, suggesting that having an ancient constitution is not always a good thing.

There is another reason to change the system, too. Here's the Commission again:

"'Household' registration system means there is no personal ownership by citizens of a fundamental aspect of their participation in our democracy - their right to vote. This is too important to be left for anybody other than the individual citizen to register."

This is the direct opposite argument to that deployed by Ed Miliband and Harman in Liverpool this week.

"One of the most basic democratic rights of all is the right to vote," the leader told delegates. "We should be making it easier, not harder."

Miliband placed great emphasis on the "civic duty" to register to vote in the current system, in which it is a legal obligation to register. Under the coalition's changes, participating in the electoral process becomes a voluntary one.

Voter registration is a complex area which both parties have a predictably skewed view on. There are all sorts of complications which changing the way the electoral register works will have, which are set to muddy the debate still further. The Electoral Commission is worried about the edited register (it wants it abolished), the implications for selecting juries, concerns over personal data under the new registration system, the tick-box opt-out and even cuts faced by local electoral registration teams. Much to keep an eye on, it seems.

Conservatives should stand candidates for the police commissioner elections

by www.conservativehome.com

In November next year there will be elections in England and Wales (apart from London) for Police Commissioners across the 41 police authorities. Those elected will have the power to set priorities for fighting crime, to set the precept and to sack chief constables for fail to deliver.

Yet all the three main political parties are showing reluctance to field candidates. There is a sense that independents might be better suited. Paul has already written about this.

Perhaps there will be independent candidates with tough and effective crime fighting credentials that will come forward. But can we be confident there would in all 41 areas? I think the electorate should be offered a choice that includes a Conservative candidate. The problem of splitting the vote does not arise as the Supplementary Vote method is being used (the same as for the Mayor of London.) So Conservative supporters could offer an independent they were impressed with their second preference.

The Local Government Chronicle reports (£) Labour MP and Shadow Policing Minister Vernon Coaker says Labour's "default position" is to run candidates but adds: “If the Tories don’t, we need to consider that carefully."

Cllr Stephen Bett, a Conservative councillor and chairman of Norfolk Police Authority wants to be his county’s police commissioner, but says of his approach to CCHQ: “I have inquired what we are doing in this county and region and I’ve come up with a blank. There seems to be tremendous confusion."

The confusion should end. We should declare that we are running candidates and an effort should be made to get some of the highest calibre.

What about David Davis as the Police Commissioner for Humberside, asks Political Betting? Good idea. Not just for Humberside but for the rest of us who could see what he comes up with it and copy it if it works.

Come to that what about Lord Howard of Lympne as the Police Commissioner for Kent? He cut crime when he was Home Secretary. Perhaps Ann Widdecombe could give it a go if he wasn't interested..

What about Lord Ashcroft, who has done such a tremendous job with Crime Stoppers, as the Police Commissioner for Thames Valley?

Edward Boyd, Rory Geoghegan and Blair Gibbs wrote an excellent report for Policy Exchange about value for money in policing. So let's see them come forward as candidates. Blair says someone like Nick Ross would be a good independent candidate - but Ross can't stand everywhere. He may not stand anywhere.

It may well be that lots of independents are returned. But the Conservatives have a strong law and order brand. We have within our ranks lots of people who would make excellent Police Commissioners including some with a high profile and others less well known but with considerable expertise. they will cretainly include councillors who have served on Police Authorities but they shouldn't be limited to this category.

These are important elections and we should not be spectators.

Harriet’s seat-for-a-sister plan

by Women On.

Following Labour’s all-women meeting on Saturday, which featured the now-famous ‘honorary woman’ Ed Miliband, Harriet Harman is pushing forward her plan to ensure that either the leader or the deputy leader of the Labour Party is always female.

In the ultimate act of positive discrimination, Harriet wants to make sure there is a seat-for-a-sister, a place for a women on top.

This ridiculous act is based on two assumptions: that a women will always act in the best interests of other women, which is clearly untrue, and that there will always be a woman up to the job. Despite years of tinkering, culminating in all-women shortlists, less than a third of Labour MPs are female, so either the leader or the deputy leader will be selected from a smaller pool.

Yet again, Labour are attacking men by giving women greater rather than equal rights. Assuming that men can’t or won’t act in the best interests of women. What does that say about their ability to empathise with any group?

Must a leader be poor to empathise with the poor? Must a leader be a Muslim to empathise with Muslims? Must a leader be black to empathise with ethic groups? Clearly not.

Labour members and the Unions should reject Harriet’s ridiculous seat-for-a-sister plan as an out-dated idea from a radical feminist which is patently anti-men. Will ‘honorary woman’ Ed Miliband stand up to her?


September 25th

Ed Miliband to open up Labour leadership elections to the public?

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter

Will Ed Miliband open up Labour's leadership elections to the public? Not quite. Mr Miliband has tabled proposals at a meeting of Labour's National Executive Committee to create "tens of thousands" of "registered supporters" who will be eligible to vote in future leadership elections. However, the "registered supporters" would be included in the part of Labour's electoral college which includes the unions and affiliated socialist societies (the Fabian Society, Christian Socialist Movement, Labour Students, etc), which means - on the face of it - the unions’ share of the leadership votes will be cut.

Contrary to how this news might be reported, the proposal is modest and does not mean ordinary folk will really be able to influence elections. The reality is that non-party members have always been able to vote - the affiliated societies section can include non-members, and the trade unions section already includes plenty of non-Labour members. For example, members and supporters of the Conservatives, who were also union members, were allowed a vote in last year's Labour leadership election.

The second reason why this reform is not really radical is that putting the "registered supporters" in the third of the electoral college that includes union members, Ed Miliband is diluting the union vote to some degree, but not enough to sway a leadership election. Therefore, the unions will still dominate their part of the leadership vote. As the FT's Jim Pickard says, "Miliband’s team suggest that the figure will be “tens of thousands”. Perhaps. But simple maths would suggest that even a hundred thousand would only partially dilute the power of union members."

Finally, who would want to be a "registered supporter"? Is it going to be the long-time Labour voters whose views are generally ignored by the leadership - the Gillian Duffy type of Labour voter? That's unlikely. More realistic is that the average "registered member" will be an activist whose views are not representative of the public at large. This reform is unlikely to change anything much.

Another gimmick to avoid Labour Party democracy!   One member one vote!   Wait for it to be watered down!

Shocked MPs told electoral plan could remove 10m voters

As many as 10 million voters, predominantly poor, young or black, and more liable to vote Labour, could fall off the electoral register under government plans, the Electoral Commission, electoral administrators and psephologists warned .

The changes will pave the way for a further review of constituency boundaries that will reduce the number of safe Labour seats before the 2020 election.

MPs on the political and constitutional reform select committee only realised the implications of the plans following three evidence sessions with election experts over the past week to examine the white paper which proposes to introduce individual electoral registration rather than household registration before the 2015 election.

The committee chairman, Labour MP Graham Allen, said they were "genuinely shocked". Even Tory members such as Eleanor Laing expressed surprise.

The policy has been described by Jenny Russell, the chair of the electoral commission, as the biggest change to voting since the introduction of the universal franchise.

Ministers have unexpectedly proposed that it should no longer be compulsory to co-operate with electoral registration officers (EROs) when they try to compile an accurate register, in effect downgrading the civic duty to engage with politics.

Russell warned: "It is logical to suggest that those that do not vote in elections will not see the point of registering to vote and it is possible that the register may therefore go from a 90%completeness that we currently have to 60-65%."

John Stewart, chairman of the electoral registration officers, said the drop-off was likely to be 10% in "the leafy shires" but closer to 30% in inner city areas. He said there would be an incentive not to register as the list is used for jury service and to combat credit fraud. He said he expected large numbers of young voters would not register.

The Cabinet Office, overseen by Nick Clegg, which had already decided there would be no household canvass in 2014 to save money, is introducing individual registration before the 2015 general election. The Electoral Commission said the change would mean 10% of the electorate could fall off the register in as many as 300 local authority areas.

The full effect of voluntary individual registration will be felt at the 2020 general election because the constituency boundaries for that election will be based on a voluntary individual register compiled in December 2015.

The projected 30% fall off in registered voters, weighted towards poorer voters, would require the boundary commission to reduce the number of inner-city Labour seats because the Boundary Commission is required to draw up constituencies with the sole objective of equalising the size of the electorates and not to take into account natural or political borders.

It is already estimated that as many as 3 million people currently eligible to vote do not register even though it is compulsory to co-operate with the compilation of the registry.

Although individual registration will be introduced before the 2015 general election, ministers have said the names on the existing household register can be carried over on to the election register, so reducing the impact.

Tristam Hunt, a Labour committee member, said: "These plans show how little this government really cares about democracy or fairness. If they get away with it, the effect on the 2020 general election will make the chaotic boundary review published this week look minor. This is designed to wipe the poor and the young off the political map.

"We are moving from a notion of registering as part as a civic duty to something akin to personal choice like a Nectar card or BA miles."

Russell said the government's plans had "unforeseen consequences".

It is currently an offence, liable to a maximum fine of £1,000, to fail to comply with a request for information from an ERO or to give false information.

The Cabinet Office white paper, published in the summer said: "While we strongly encourage people to register to vote, the government believes the act is one of personal choice and as such there should be no compulsion placed on an individual to make an application to register to vote."

Roger Mortimore from pollsters Ipsos Mori warned: "It is a very dramatic change and I am opposed to it. So far there is a political effect, it is most likely to disadvantage Labour", because "people that are least engaged in politics — the poor, the young and the ethnic minorities and all those groups, when they do vote at all are more likely to vote Labour".


September 18th

Government plans could disenfranchise millions

   Commenting on the government's proposals to remove the legal duty for people to register to vote, Director of Unlock Democracy Peter Facey commented:

   “Unlock Democracy believes that individual voter registration is essential to improving the security of our elections and actively campaigned for it. It is an important mechanism to prevent fraud and ensure that the person who casts the vote in an election, is the person on the electoral register. But we have always recognised that its introduction, at least in the short term, would require Electoral Registration Officers to be more pro-active, not less.

   “Scrapping the 2014 canvass alongside the legal duty for people to register represents a double-whammy and will lead to millions of people to fall off the register. Combine this with the new rolling boundary review rules and it will mean that many people on the margins of society will be disenfranchised in the 2020 general election.

  “It is a simple fact of life that effective electoral administration costs money. This is not an administrative issue but one that cuts to the heart of our democracy. This isn’t a question of bureaucracy but of who gets to participate in our political system. It is bad enough that the voting system excludes so many people; when even the registration system is rigged against under-represented groups we cannot call ourselves a democracy by any definition.

  Have the Government taken leave of their senses?

Miliband leadership vote 'was not free and fair', claims study

By Isabel Hardman on "politicshome"

Ed Miliband will today come under renewed pressure to reform Labour's leadership elections after a study claimed his own election was not a "free and fair democratic" contest.

The research from academics at the University of Bristol, seen by PoliticsHome, claims the 2010 Labour leadership election did not meet the definition of a "free and fair democratic election". It also shows how the trade unions created a 'block vote' in favour of their preferred candidate – Mr Miliband - in Labour's leadership election last September.

Members of Mr Miliband's own campaign admitted to the authors during their research that the way he won the election, beating his brother David by 1.3% of the vote, created a problem of legitimacy.

The report, Reinventing the block vote? Trade unions and the 2010 Labour party leadership election, by Richard Jobson and Mark Wickham-Jones is likely to provide embarrassment for Mr Miliband as he addresses the Trades Union Congress this week, and considers plans to make his party more democratic ahead of its conference in Liverpool in a fortnight's time.

It argues that the leadership contest does not meet the definition of a free and fair election because the candidates did not secure equal access to the electorate in their campaigning, voters were not fully informed about the five candidates and their policies because the unions distributed information about only their preferred candidates alongside ballot papers, and the union contribution to certain campaigns meant an unequal distribution of resources between those standing.

The report says: "It is because of these conditions that we question the normative legitimacy of the process by which Ed Miliband was elected. Legitimacy is clearly a contested and normative concept. A legitimate election, we believe, is one conducted under fair procedures and one in which participants consent to the result on the basis that the contest was handled on an even-handed and non-discriminatory basis, irrespective of the result.

"In other words, we conclude that the 2010 leadership contest does not meet the criteria mapped our in our introduction as to what is a free and fair democratic election."

Membership lists

One team member told the researchers that preventing other candidates from using the membership lists was like “running a national election campaign with someone deciding who to give the electoral register to... you can't [campaign], you have no list, you can't tell, you have no access.”

Another campaigner working for David Miliband claimed: “We didn't have access to union lists because we didn't get the union nomination.”

The influence of the unions over how their members voted was powerful, with 49% of voters following their union's recommendation. In a private interview with Mr Wickham-Jones and Mr Jobson, a member of Mr Miliband's campaign team admitted that had he also won the membership section, rather than simply the union vote, it would have “transformed the legitimacy of his win”.

The report's authors argue that they are not attempting to criticise Mr Miliband's own role in the electoral process. But they add: “However, the circumstances of his election can hardly have assisted him in his new post and may in part explain the rumblings of dissatisfaction that have been commonplace concerning his performance since his victory.

“It may also go some way to explain his difficult relations with the trade unions over the issue of public sector strikes in the summer of 2011 – by way of the need for a counter-reaction. Legitimate electoral processes confer authority upon the winner.”

Reform

They call for reform of the party's electoral college, arguing that "at the very least Labour needs a set of clear rules, which prohibit trade union leaderships from exercising the kind of interventions that had such an impact in 2010."

Mr Miliband is reported to be mulling over plans to force the unions to hand over their lists of 3m political levy payers to enable leadership candidates to contact them directly. Yesterday, Unite general secretary Len McCluskey said he was willing to discuss any plans to make the party more democratic.

He told the Andrew Marr Show that plans to change the voting process were “not particularly a worry for me, I mean the issue of Refounding Labour and the question of trying to make the Labour party vibrant is something I'm happy to look at. If there's some perceived democratic deficit, I'm prepared to look at it.”



September 11th

Should the Party run candidates for election as Police Commissioners?

By Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter

The first tranche of elections for police commissioners is expected to take place next spring. A reader asked recently whether the Party intends to stand candidates for them - and, if so, how the selection process will work.

There is obviously an option at either extreme. The first is that Downing Street and CCHQ could decide that Conservative candidates should stand for every vacancy, and devise an interventionist selection procedure like those that help shape the choice of candidates for Westminster and the European Parliament.

The second is that both conclude that police commissioners should be independents, and announce that no official Conservative candidates will contest the elections.

I gather that some senior Tories briefly considered going even further than the second extreme, if that's possible. They chewed over the possibility of the legislation actually barring political party candidates from standing - before swiftly rejecting the idea, rightly, as illiberal.

The instinct behind it has roots in parts of the Home Office and Justice teams that have survived from opposition - particularly those with a sturdy track record of support for localism.

Nick Herbert, the energetic Home Office and Justice Minister, has long been an enthusiast for the emergence of independent candidates with robust views on law and order - and perhaps some policing expertise, too - in the police commissioner elections.

Obviously, he and other Ministers will want such candidates to have vigorous support from and excellent relations with local Tories. But the itch for these independents is understandable.

I understand that discussions are taking place at the moment about what exactly should be done. And that no-one in Downing Street, CCHQ or elsewhere is pressing for the first option - Conservative candidates for every vacancy.

Instead, there is likely to be a localist solution. If Conservative Associations in one area want to run a candidate, they'll be able to do so. And if they don't, no-one will force them to.

This solution, though elegant - and I think correct - raises a practical question and a more philosophical one. The practical one is: if Associations in any area (for example, the Thames Valley, with which I've some familiarity) want to select a candidate, how will the process work?

The philosophical one is: while the desire for independents fits the anti-establishment mood of the times, shouldn't it be questioned? After all, what's the point of a political party that doesn't stand candidates?

To continue with this way of thinking: if independents who have good relations with local Conservatives are suitable to be police commissioners, why aren't they suitable to be MPs? And if they are, why bother standing Tory candidates in constituencies at all?

The narrow question of whether the party, at both a national and local level, should back Conservative or independent candidates for these elections thus turns out to have very wide implications.

The Liberal Democrats, we read, are already advertising for candidates - while simultaneously plotting to halt the elections altogether. I'd like to see local Conservative decision-making on the matter - and hope that in most areas party members either select a Tory candidate or support a strong centre-right independent.

 

Discuss this issue at the next COPOV Forum on 24th September


September 4th

Is this the beginning of the end?

Murdo Fraser is standing for Leader of the Scottish Conservative Party.   This is what he says:

“If I am elected as leader of the party, I will turn it into a new and stronger party for Scotland. A new party. A winning party with new supporters from all walks of life. A new belief in devolution. A new approach to policy-making. A new name. But, most importantly, a new positive message about the benefits of staying in and strengthening our United Kingdom. A new party. A new unionism. A new dawn."

Will Wales and Northern Ireland be next and after that will the Tories realise that they do not have enough members to fight a National campaign and abandon all seats North of Birmingham?   Instead of creating a new Party why will they not solve the real problem, which is the decline in membership?   The writing is on the wall.   Without action now this is the beginning of the end.    What the Tories desperately need to do is to create a democratic Party, but will they?   We shall see.

What do you think of this?

         57 Asians
        21 Europeans
        14 Americans (North, Central, South)
          8 Africans

        There would be:
        52 women and 48 men
        30 Caucasians and 70 non-Caucasians
        30 Christians and 70 non-Christians
        89 heterosexuals
        11 homosexuals

        6 people would possess 59% of the wealth and they would all come from the USA
        80 would live in poverty
        70 would be illiterate
        50 would suffer from hunger and malnutrition
         1 would be dying
         1 would be being born
         1 (yes, only one) would have a university degree


August 28th

House of Lords - Points to think about

Isn't it time the House of Lords was reformed?


August 21st

Party Accounts

In the Labour Party accounts they show that membership has increased during 2010 from 156,205 to 193,961,   Why doesn't the Conservative accounts show the information about their membership?.   The only clue you get is from the membership income figures which show a drop during 2010.

There are two interesting points in the Conservative accounts.    Fund raising income is £492,000 but the cost of fund raising is £747,000!

Now that the Party is running the Party conference it was interesting to see that they made a profit of £1.7 million on it.   In which case why do they charge members so much to go to it?   They could let them in for free and still make a profit of £1.4 million.   If they had any sense they would do so and give people a benefit from being a Party member!   Come on Central Office, how about it?

Nigel Farage

In Nigel Farage's autobiography he points out that he is allowed to make 28 speeches a year in the European Parliament at 1.5 minutes a time, i.e 42 minutes in all. Taking overheads into account an MEP costs the taxpayer £1.2 million per year or put another way Nigel Farage costs us £500 per second for every speech he makes in the Parliament.   Makes you think!


August 14th

Great Article

by

Peter Oborne in The Daily Telegraph

David Cameron, Ed Miliband and the entire British political class came together yesterday to denounce the rioters. They were of course right to say that the actions of these looters, arsonists and muggers were abhorrent and criminal, and that the police should be given more support.

But there was also something very phony and hypocritical about all the shock and outrage expressed in parliament. MPs spoke about the week’s dreadful events as if they were nothing to do with them.

I cannot accept that this is the case. Indeed, I believe that the criminality in our streets cannot be dissociated from the moral disintegration in the highest ranks of modern British society. The last two decades have seen a terrifying decline in standards among the British governing elite. It has become acceptable for our politicians to lie and to cheat. An almost universal culture of selfishness and greed has grown up.

It is not just the feral youth of Tottenham who have forgotten they have duties as well as rights. So have the feral rich of Chelsea and Kensington. A few years ago, my wife and I went to a dinner party in a large house in west London. A security guard prowled along the street outside, and there was much talk of the “north-south divide”, which I took literally for a while until I realised that my hosts were facetiously referring to the difference between those who lived north and south of Kensington High Street.

Most of the people in this very expensive street were every bit as deracinated and cut off from the rest of Britain as the young, unemployed men and women who have caused such terrible damage over the last few days. For them, the repellent Financial Times magazine How to Spend It is a bible. I’d guess that few of them bother to pay British tax if they can avoid it, and that fewer still feel the sense of obligation to society that only a few decades ago came naturally to the wealthy and better off.

Yet we celebrate people who live empty lives like this. A few weeks ago, I noticed an item in a newspaper saying that the business tycoon Sir Richard Branson was thinking of moving his headquarters to Switzerland. This move was represented as a potential blow to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, because it meant less tax revenue.

I couldn’t help thinking that in a sane and decent world such a move would be a blow to Sir Richard, not the Chancellor. People would note that a prominent and wealthy businessman was avoiding British tax and think less of him. Instead, he has a knighthood and is widely feted. The same is true of the brilliant retailer Sir Philip Green. Sir Philip’s businesses could never survive but for Britain’s famous social and political stability, our transport system to shift his goods and our schools to educate his workers.

Yet Sir Philip, who a few years ago sent an extraordinary £1 billion dividend offshore, seems to have little intention of paying for much of this. Why does nobody get angry or hold him culpable? I know that he employs expensive tax lawyers and that everything he does is legal, but he surely faces ethical and moral questions just as much as does a young thug who breaks into one of Sir Philip’s shops and steals from it?

Our politicians – standing sanctimoniously on their hind legs in the Commons yesterday – are just as bad. They have shown themselves prepared to ignore common decency and, in some cases, to break the law. David Cameron is happy to have some of the worst offenders in his Cabinet. Take the example of Francis Maude, who is charged with tackling public sector waste – which trade unions say is a euphemism for waging war on low-paid workers. Yet Mr Maude made tens of thousands of pounds by breaching the spirit, though not the law, surrounding MPs’ allowances.

A great deal has been made over the past few days of the greed of the rioters for consumer goods, not least by Rotherham MP Denis MacShane who accurately remarked, “What the looters wanted was for a few minutes to enter the world of Sloane Street consumption.” This from a man who notoriously claimed £5,900 for eight laptops. Of course, as an MP he obtained these laptops legally through his expenses.

Yesterday, the veteran Labour MP Gerald Kaufman asked the Prime Minister to consider how these rioters can be “reclaimed” by society. Yes, this is indeed the same Gerald Kaufman who submitted a claim for three months’ expenses totalling £14,301.60, which included £8,865 for a Bang & Olufsen television.

Or take the Salford MP Hazel Blears, who has been loudly calling for draconian action against the looters. I find it very hard to make any kind of ethical distinction between Blears’s expense cheating and tax avoidance, and the straight robbery carried out by the looters.

The Prime Minister showed no sign that he understood that something stank about yesterday’s Commons debate. He spoke of morality, but only as something which applies to the very poor: “We will restore a stronger sense of morality and responsibility – in every town, in every street and in every estate.” He appeared not to grasp that this should apply to the rich and powerful as well.

The tragic truth is that Mr Cameron is himself guilty of failing this test. It is scarcely six weeks since he jauntily turned up at the News International summer party, even though the media group was at the time subject to not one but two police investigations. Even more notoriously, he awarded a senior Downing Street job to the former News of the World editor Andy Coulson, even though he knew at the time that Coulson had resigned after criminal acts were committed under his editorship. The Prime Minister excused his wretched judgment by proclaiming that “everybody deserves a second chance”. It was very telling yesterday that he did not talk of second chances as he pledged exemplary punishment for the rioters and looters.

These double standards from Downing Street are symptomatic of widespread double standards at the very top of our society. It should be stressed that most people (including, I know, Telegraph readers) continue to believe in honesty, decency, hard work, and putting back into society at least as much as they take out.

But there are those who do not. Certainly, the so-called feral youth seem oblivious to decency and morality. But so are the venal rich and powerful – too many of our bankers, footballers, wealthy businessmen and politicians.

Of course, most of them are smart and wealthy enough to make sure that they obey the law. That cannot be said of the sad young men and women, without hope or aspiration, who have caused such mayhem and chaos over the past few days. But the rioters have this defence: they are just following the example set by senior and respected figures in society. Let’s bear in mind that many of the youths in our inner cities have never been trained in decent values. All they have ever known is barbarism. Our politicians and bankers, in sharp contrast, tend to have been to good schools and universities and to have been given every opportunity in life.

Something has gone horribly wrong in Britain. If we are ever to confront the problems which have been exposed in the past week, it is essential to bear in mind that they do not only exist in inner-city housing estates.

The culture of greed and impunity we are witnessing on our TV screens stretches right up into corporate boardrooms and the Cabinet. It embraces the police and large parts of our media. It is not just its damaged youth, but Britain itself that needs a moral reformation.

Surrender or disaster

By Robert Peston on the BBC

Let's just think for a second what is entailed by the kind of fiscal integration required to make a practical reality of euro bonds.

There would be a permanent surrender by member states of important rights over how much they could raise in tax and spend on public services. The new decision-making body would probably have to be some kind of finance ministry - which would presumably be in Brussels - for the whole of the eurozone, which would be headed by a European uber finance minister.

So the tax-and-spending relationship between - say - the French governenment and the new eurozone super finance ministry would be similar to the relationship between the Scottish and Welsh governments and HM Treasury.

Quite apart from the serious practical and technical challenges of establishing this new fiscal decision-making body for the eurozone, it is not at all clear that the citizens of eurozone countries would feel comfortable about even greater distance being put between their votes and decisions that have a direct impact on their quality of life and prosperity.

It is difficult to see how eurozone fiscal integration designed to close a financial deficit can be achieved without enlarging Europe's democratic deficit.


August 7th

Voice of the Grass Roots

A musing on the death of the Tory Party ...

Written by Peter Bingle, Chairman, Bell Pottinger Public Affairs

Does the Tory Party still exist? Is it still the political voice of nice people living in the nicest parts of England and Wales or is it just a figment of our imagination?

I suspect that when Tory MPs return home to their constituencies on a Friday evening they wish it didn’t exist. Tory activists like Tory voters are not happy bunnies. They share the frustration increasingly being voiced by the righty-wing media. What has happened to the Tory Party? Where has it gone? Why is the coalition government not pursuing a Tory agenda?

Take Baroness Warsi who is supposed to be the Chairman of the Tory Party. In a disappearing act worthy of the great Harry Houdini she has quite simply vanished. Has she become shy? Has she got a very bad dose of tonsillitis? It is more than just counter-intuitive to have a Tory Party Chairman who is never seen or heard. I will buy lunch or dinner for the first person who can prove to me that Baroness Warsi still exists.

At a time of coalition government (and I remain a fan) it is all the more important that the Tory Party has a voice. Our values are important values. We believe in the family but embrace diversity. We believe in a small state and empowered citizens. We believe in strong defence and we support the police. We believe in low taxes and choice. I could go on …

There is part of me which believes that the PM and his key aides aren’t that bothered about the Tory Party. He is clearly a Whig and puts pragmatism before conviction or ideology. I am not even sure that he cares very much about the Tory Party and its quaint ways. I was brought up in Putney Conservative Association. The local branch structure. The formidable Women’s Committee. Executive Committee Meetings. Jumble Sales. Political Suppers. These are what make (or rather made) the Tory Party so special. Like Tony Blair I think that the PM doesn’t have much time for any of it.

When God created the world he spent a whole (coffee) morning creating a creature called ‘Tory Woman.’ There is nothing quite like them in the whole animal kingdom. Perhaps David Attenborough should do a series about a species that was created to organise coffee mornings, political suppers, Tory Balls and run committee rooms on polling days. I do not mock Tory Woman. Over the years I have grown very fond of them. I love them dearly. They must be despairing about what is happening to the party they have devoted their lives to serving.

If we aren’t careful the Tory Party will wither on the vine and then die. In many parts of the country it is already the case that Tory activists are, to quote W S Gilbert, in the autumn of their lives. There are far too few young activists. This situation will only get worse if there is not a cogent, populist and compelling Tory case being made to the public. We are witnessing the slow painful death of the Tory Party.

Why is the Tory case not being made? Does anybody really care? When will Baroness Warsi be replaced by somebody who actually exists? Is the Tory Party finished?

July 17th

Law change paves way for Coalition candidates

Planned changes to electoral law which pave the way for Coalition candidates to stand at the next election have been quietly slipped out by ministers, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

Goose for the Gander?

Row breaks out as Labour backs proposals to elect all AMs by first-past-the-post

A huge row has blown up after Labour proposed changing the National Assembly’s electoral system so all AMs were elected on a “first-past-the-post” basis.

The change in policy – announced by Shadow Welsh Secretary Peter Hain – breaks a consensus between the parties which has lasted since the Assembly was set up following a referendum in 1997.

And it involved Mr Hain making the remarkable admission that Labour had “got it wrong” when devising the current two-tier system for electing AMs.

Under present arrangements, 40 of the 60 AMs are elected from single-member constituencies covering the whole of Wales. The remainder are elected on a regional list system designed to compensate parties whose level of support was not reflected in the number of constituency seats won.

But changes must now be made because of plans to cut the number of constituencies in Wales from 40 to 30.

Today Mr Hain will meet Conservative Secretary of State Cheryl Gillan and tell her that the existing electoral system should be scrapped.

He told us: “The only acceptable option given the AV referendum result is to have all AMs elected by first-past-the- post, and we believe that each of the 30 new constituencies should elect two AMs by that system.

“The case for AV at Westminster level was defeated, against my vote and my longstanding support, by a thumping vote for first-past-the-post. Every single part of Wales voted against AV.

“In Wales we shall be losing 25% of our representation at Westminster, while across Britain the reduction is 8%. We have been punished enough.

“In Scotland the decoupling of constituencies [where Westminster and Scottish Parliament seats now have different boundaries] has been disastrous. If that happened in Wales, you would be likely to have a situation where one Assembly seat straddled three parliamentary seats, with all the problems that causes.

“I think in retrospect we have to accept that we got it wrong when we set up the Assembly with a two-tier electoral system that has two kinds of AM, and it should now be changed. The Conservatives back first-past-the-post – they ran the No campaign in the AV referendum.”

Mr Hain said he did not accept that having all AMs elected by first-past-the-post would result in a permanent Labour majority: “We can’t predict what would happen,” he said.

A source close to the First Minister said: “A system based on proportional representation would be difficult to support, given the result of the referendum in May.

“The First Minister believes that 60 AMs, elected by first- past-the-post, is the best option for the future.”

But opposition parties reacted angrily to the proposal.

Paul Davies, the acting leader of the Welsh Conservatives in the National Assembly, said: “It is extraordinary that the Labour Party is once again seeking to manipulate the Assembly’s electoral system for its own ends.

“Labour already forced through a change to the Assembly’s electoral system which was condemned as undemocratic by the Government’s own electoral watchdog and rejected in Scotland, while Labour AMs have previously called for a system which gives Labour a massively disproportional advantage.

“At the election in May they won 70% of the constituency seats on barely 40% of the popular vote. Labour is clearly trying to turn Wales into a one-party state as a means of avoiding accountability and scrutiny of its government’s shameful record.

“As the Secretary of State for Wales made clear to Parliament two months ago, the UK Government will look carefully at the implications of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act on the Assembly’s constituencies.

“No decisions have been taken and full discussions will be required before any changes are made.”

Conservative sources pointed to a statement made by Mr Hain in the House of Commons in 1999, two weeks after the first Assembly election.

Speaking as a Wales Office Minister he said: “Proportional representation ... gave all the minority parties representation that they would not otherwise have achieved and which we believe they should have had.”

Plaid Cymru MP Jonathan Edwards, who first raised the issue of the Assembly’s electoral system in a parliamentary question to Mrs Gillan in May, said: “It is typical of Labour to want to replace an unfair electoral system with one that is even more unfair.

“In May’s election, Labour won 50% of the seats despite getting only 42.3% of constituency votes and 36.9% of regional votes. Electing two AMs for each constituency on a first-past-the-post basis would distort the result even further and I think it would give Labour a permanent overall majority.

“It seems they have done a 360 degrees turn. Only last week it seemed that they didn’t want to have coterminous boundaries for Westminster and Assembly elections – now it seems they do.

“Plaid’s preference would be for all AMs to be elected by STV [Single Transferable Vote]. But with that option not on the table, the fairest solution would be 30 AMs elected by first-past- the-post and 30 from regional lists.”

A Welsh Liberal Democrat spokesman said: “We are not remotely interested in discussing any voting system that does not increase democracy and put more power in the hands of voters to ensure that outcomes are fair.

“It’s lamentable that Peter Hain, Carwyn Jones and Labour are now looking to form a backward-looking alliance with the Conservatives to force an unfair electoral system on the Welsh people.”

Read More http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/07/14/first-past-the-post-for-senedd-has-labour-vote-91466-29049445/#ixzz1SO1fuY6n


July 10th

House of Lords Reform - Did you know?

As no new peers of Scotland were created after the Act of Union in 1707, their numbers gradually dwindled, and since the enactment of the Peerage Act 1963 all holders of Scottish peerages had a right to membership of the House of Lords.    The position and rights of Scottish peers in relation to the House of Lords was unclear during most of the eighteenth century.   In 1711, James Douglas, 4th Duke of Hamilton, a peer of Scotland, was appointed Duke of Brandon in the Peerage of Great Britain.   When he sought to sit in the House of Lords, he was denied admittance, the Lords ruling that a peer of Scotland could not sit in the House of Lords unless he was a representative peer, even if he also held a British peerage.  They reasoned that the Act of Union 1707 had established the number of Scots peers in the House of Lords at no more and no less than sixteen.   In 1782, however, the House of Lords reversed the decision, holding that the Crown could admit anyone it pleases to the House of Lords, whether a Scottish peer or not, subject only to qualifications such as age and citizenship.

Currently the hereditary peers elect 93 from amongst their number to sit in the House of Lords.

Voting by proxy in the House of Lords was an ancient custom, often abused.   In Charles II's reign the Duke of Buckingham used to bring twenty proxies in his pocket, and the         result was that it was ordered that no peer should bring more than two.    In 1830 to 1867 inclusive proxies were only called seventy-three times; and on the 31st of March 1868, on the          recommendation of a committee, a new standing order was adopted by which the practice of calling for proxies on a division was discontinued.

Murdoch

In January I was told that James Murdoch was favourable to supporting the Alternative Vote in the referendum.   Subsequently Jeremy Hunt gave permission to News International to proceed with their bid for BSkyB.    Subsequently The Sun launched a strong campaign against the Alternative Vote.    The Prime Minister launched his campaign against the Alternative Vote.    Were all these connected?   I think we should be told.

Zac Goldsmith

Before I became a member of parliament in May last year, my limited experience told me that British democracy was flawed. After just over a year as an MP, I now know that it is utterly dysfunctional. Politicians are already deeply disliked, and the expenses scandal didn't help. But, despite the horror stories, the real scandal has absolutely nothing to do with expenses. It is that parliament routinely fails in its most basic duties.

A backbench MP is paid to do two things - hold the government to account and vote in a way that is good for the people they represent. The present structures ensure they do neither, and the effect is that decisions taken by a very small number of politicians are subjected to virtually no scrutiny at all.

You have only to look at the maths. Nearly a third of MPs are on the "payroll". That includes ministers, shadow ministers and also parliamentary private secretaries, who are not paid, but who are bound by the code of loyalty that requires them always to vote with the government. Of the remaining two-thirds of MPs, most want to join the payroll. That requires a political lobotomy, and unthinking submission to the party line.

Loyalty is one thing, but we have reached an extreme. If a backbench MP speaks out against a government decision, it is seen as an act of aggression. If he tables a minor amendment, it's worse still. And if he votes against his party, it's an act of career suicide.

Consider the vote at the start of the year on the proposed forest sell-off. Many coalition MPs were bitterly opposed. And yet, when the division bell sounded, just seven voted against. Had all those who opposed it used their vote accordingly, the policy would have been buried instantly and the government would have been reminded that parliament exists.

It is tempting to blame the whip system, but that misses the point. The whips have a crucial job to do. They are there to help push through the government's agenda. It is the job of backbenchers to resist that pressure.

That doesn't mean endless gridlock and rebellion. It means creating a healthy tension, so that the executive is required to think before acting and to take on board the advice of the legislature. I do not believe we will have a vibrant and functioning democracy without a more independent legislature. Unfortunately, none of the reforms on offer today is designed to address that core issue.

There are, however, some simple reforms that would help improve British democracy. For example, we should end the ludicrous situation whereby a handful of MPs can kill off a bill by "talking it out" and pushing it off the agenda. We should ensure that, as the number of MPs is reduced as planned, so too is the number of MPs on the payroll. If not, the balance will become still more skewed. The language used in parliament could be much clearer. It's an embarrassing secret that if you were to stand outside the lobby after a division and ask MPs what they had just voted for, only a handful would be able to tell you. Why not accompany every bill, motion and amendment with a plain English explanation before asking MPs to vote on it?

Overall, though, if we want to counter the inability (or unwillingness) of parliament to scrutinise the executive, we need something bolder. A very significant start would be for the coalition partners to honour a pre-election promise made by all of the then party leaders. Following the expenses scandal, each of the leaders made a promise to allow constituents to "recall" their representative between elections. That pledge has, in effect, been scrapped.

True recall, indeed true democracy, allows people to remove their representative if most constituents have lost confidence in him or her, for whatever reason. It is a right that should exist for voters at every level, from councillor to MP. This is not a new idea. There have been failed recall attempts in California, including one against Ronald Reagan in 1968. However, in 2003, voters successfully recalled the sitting governor, Gray Davis, and replaced him at a new election with Arnold Schwarzenegger.

That couldn't be further from where we are today in Britain. Under the current rules, a new MP could theoretically move to another country for five years and leave constituency work to a caseworker. Local voters would be lumbered with a useless representative until the next general election.

Most MPs occupy "safe" seats and are hard, if not impossible, to shift. The pressure they feel is from their party, not from the voters. Recall would keep even these MPs on their toes, because a member of one party could be replaced by another from the same party.

The coalition insists that it will still introduce a version of recall, but the small print makes it worse than useless. Instead of handing the decision to the voters, the government will pass it up to MPs on a parliamentary committee. Its members alone will decide if a member has behaved badly enough to be "recalled".

I have tabled an Early Day Motion calling for true Recall, and so far, nearly 50 MPs from all parties have endorsed it. I hope many more will join them. With enough support, we will be able to facilitate a debate on the Chamber followed by a vote. And if it goes the right way, I have no doubt Parliament, and indeed democracy will benefit.

Zac Goldsmith is the MP for Richmond Park and North Kingston


July 3rd

HS2

Conservative Associations in Aylesbury, Chesham and Amersham and Buckingham have decided to withhold quota money from Central Office because of the Party's support for HS2.   This is all perfectly legitimate.    However we are told by conservativehome that the Beaconsfield association have decided to donate a £1,000 to the Anti HS2 campaign.   Think again Beaconsfield.   The Objects of the Beaconsfield constituency are as follow:

The Objects of the Association shall be to sustain and promote the objects and values of the Party in the Parliamentary constituency of Beaconsfield("the Constituency"); to provide an effective campaigning organisation in the Constituency; to secure the return of Conservative candidates at elections; and to raise the necessary funds to achieve these objectives; to contribute to the central funds of the Party.

By no stretch of the imagination can you say that a donation to a campaigning group which is opposed to Conservative Party policy is promoting the objects and values of the Party in the constituency.   In other words the Association is acting "Ultra Vires".   If I were an officer of the Constituency I would be a bit worried that I became financially liable for £1,000.     You can be sure of one thing.   With the amount of money involved in the HS2 project there will be some highly paid lawyers looking at the funding of the HS2 campaign just to make sure that its funding is legitimate.

Party Membership

Every time there are local elections you will find that somewhere in the country a long standing Party member has decided for one reason or another to stand against the official Party candidate.   They nearly always lose.   There is then a debate about what should happen to the membership of the long standing member, who is a good old soul really and has worked so hard for the Party in the past.   Let me tell you.

Under the Party Constitution Schedule 6. 13 it states the following

Any Party Member who stands in an election against an official party Candidate will have his name removed from the National Membership List and be expelled from the Party forthwith.

There we are, no debate required.    In the act of standing the member has excluded themselves from the Party.    They are no longer a member.

Liberal Democrat Influence

Many Conservatives complain about the disproportionate influence that the Liberal Democrats have on Coalition policies.    Part of the remedy lies with themselves.     Look what has happened on reform of the National Health Service.   The Lib-Dems signed up to the reforms, Nick Clegge signed them off.   Then suddenly they had to be changed.   The reason is that the Liberal Democrats are a democratic party and they are beginning to see the value of using democracy to get their way.    Unlike the Conservative Party, the Lib-Dems actually debate issues at their conferences, so at their Spring Conference it was natural that the subject of NHS Reform should come up.   It did and the conference passed thirteen changes they wanted to see in the Health Service reform package.   This now became Party policy.    The Lib-Dem MPs were given the backbone to stand up and demand that the changes be made regardless of what had been agreed beforehand.   This strengthened Nick Clegge's hand.   The end result was that the Tories had to give way on no less than eleven of the thirteen demands.   The Conservative Party cannot use this tool of pressure because it does not allow motions at their conferences let alone any debate on policy.

We will shortly be approaching the Autumn Party conferences.   Expect to see another issue chosen by the Lib-Dems used to pressurise changes to Coalition policy.   What will it be this time?    Trident, Green policies, who knows, but what we do know is that the Coalition will make another "U" turn, just to keep the Lib-Dem members happy.    A triumph for democracy!

Lord Adonis

The Lords is much overrated as an assembly of the wise and the independent. Most non-party peers make little if any contribution to the house, while most party appointees are long-retired former MPs, councillors or failed Commons candidates. Almost all are very old and very "ex". And they are fairly random in their activities. The Lords has no committees whatever that scrutinise large areas of government activity, including foreign affairs, defence, welfare or the public services.

Interesting comment!