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.
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."
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.”
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:
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.
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.
"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
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.
September 27th 2011
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?
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".
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.”
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
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?
If you could fit the entire population
of the world into a village consisting of 100 people, maintaining the proportions of all
the people living on Earth, that village would consist of
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
If we looked at the world in this way,
the need for acceptance and understanding would be obvious but
consider again the following:
If you woke up this morning in good
health, you have more luck than one million people, who won't live through the week.
If you have never experience the horror
of war, the solitude of prison, the pain of torture, were not close to death from
starvation, then you are better off than 500 million people.
If you can go to your place of worship
without fear that someone will assault or kill you, then you are luckier than 3 billion
(that's right) people.
If you have a full fridge, clothes on
your back, a roof over your head and a place to sleep, you are wealthier than 75% of the
world's population.
If you currently have money in the bank,
in your wallet and a few coins in your purse, you are one of 8 of the privileged few
amongst the 100 people in the world.
If your parents are still alive and
still married, you are a rare individual.
If someone sent you this message, you
are extremely lucky, because someone is thinking of you and because you don't comprise one
of those 2 billion people who can't read.
AND SO?
WORK like you don't need the money
LOVE like nobody has ever hurt you
DANCE like nobody is watching
SING like nobody is listening
LIVE as if this was paradise on Earth
SEND this message to your friends
Bypass those who are determined to see the worst in the world no matter what.
If you don't send it, nothing will
happen.
If you do send it, someone might smile
while they are reading it, and that will be positive.
There are about 130 active members of the House of Lords and they
are mainly former politicians.
There are 92 hereditary peers
There are 26 Bishops representing the Church of England.
Note the Church of Wales and the Church of Ireland have been disestablished.
79 Peers did not attend a single session of the House in the last
year.
At the time when Tony Blair ceased to be Prime Minister over half
the members of the House of Lords had been appointed by one man - Tony Blair.
The House of Lords has almost 800 members - other than the Peoples
Congress of China this is the biggest parliamentary body in the world.
The United States Senate has 100 members
61 countries in the world have elected second chambers
Criminals can sit in the House of Lords and when they finish their
prison sentences they can go on sitting in the House of Lords. Remember Lord
Jeffrey Archer, Lord Taylor of Hanningfield, Lord Conrad Black(at present in prison in
Florida)
Those members of the House of Lords that have been convicted of
theft regarding their expenses can go back into the House of Lords when they finish their
prison sentences.
Some members of the House of Lords owe their allegiance to the
European Union. In order to get their pensions that allegiance is paramount.
e.g Lords Kinnock, Patten, Brittan.
Lord Heseltine has sat in the House of Lords for 11 years and has
yet to make his maiden speech.
9 members of the House of Lords have never made a speech there, but
that does not stop them from claiming their expenses.
Lady Falkender has been in the House of Lords since 1976 and has
never made a speech there.
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!
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.
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?
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.
Nick Clegg's Whitehall department included the move in a
wider package of measures in a statement to MPs last week.
Until now, candidates who are nominated by two parties have not been allowed to
use a single emblem on ballot papers.
However, Mark Harper, a junior Cabinet Office minister, said the government was
now correcting this "oversight."
It would allow candidates to stand for election under a joint Conservative-Liberal
Democrat banner for the first time.
In the immediate wake of the formation of the Coalition last May, some MPs from both sides
privately backed the idea of joint candidates next time round.
An unnamed minister, seen as close to David Cameron last year told The Sunday
Telegraph:" I would be relaxed to the idea of having some Coalition candidates at the
next election."
John Major, the former Conservative prime minister, also backed the idea of
letting the Coalition continue in power after 2015, if the result of the next election
made this possible.
Since May's acrimonious referendum campaign on switching to an Alternative Vote
(AV) system for general elections, relations between the Tories and Lib Dems have
deteriorated badly, making the prospect of coalition candidates highly unlikely.
The governing parties have also staged a series of disputes – including over
NHS reform, banking regulations and, until last week, the planned takeover of broadcaster
BSkyB by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.
Both David Cameron and Nick Clegg have said they expect the next election to be
fought by their parties as separate entities.
However, Coalition candidates under a single banner will be technically possible
– even though such a move would be resisted by a large majority of MPs from both
parties.
Mr Harper told MPs: "We also propose to address an oversight in existing
legislation passed during the previous Government's time in office which allows a
candidate standing for a single party in a UK parliamentary election to use an emblem on
their ballot paper, but does not allow jointly nominated candidates to do so ... The
proposal will ensure that electoral law is consistent on this issue."
The move will be included in draft legislation on changing electoral law which
will shortly be put to MPs by the Cabinet Office.
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.”
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'sreign 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
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.
