The implications of Individual Voter Registration

Mary Southcott

Image © Chris Lee

The Coalition Government’s White Paper on Individual Electoral Registration (IER) claimed:

to take forward the commitment in the Coalition Agreement to speed up the move to IER and tackle electoral fraud. The current household registration system will be replaced by individual registration.  Every elector will have to register individually and provide identifying information which will be used to verify their entitlement to be included in the electoral register. Only once their application has been verified can a person be added to the register. This will help to restore trust in electoral system.

The measures set out in the paper were recommended by the Committee for Standards in Public Life back in 2007 and supported by the previous Labour government.

However, there are some worrying implications behind such laudable stated goals; namely that 10 million people could lose their right to vote if the government’s proposals come to fruition. The right to vote will once again become the preserve of the middle classes again in our supposedly inclusive parliamentary democracy. Read more of this post

Tuition Fees: Human Rights and Wrongs

Laurel

Image © Monika Ciapala

A few weeks ago the Foreign Secretary William Hague, in a speech at the Foreign Office, declared: “As a government we understand how important it is that we not only uphold our values and international law, but that we are seen to do so.

This may have come as a surprise to those who are acquainted with the UN International Covenant on Economic Cultural and Social Rights. The Covenant, signed by the UK, states in Article 13 that: “Higher education shall be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education.”

The UK Government appeared puzzled by this and, in a submission to the UN Committee in 2007, wondered:

whether this paragraph is intended to mean equal access to higher education by: (i) the progressive introduction of free higher education, OR (ii) the progressive introduction of free education up until the point at which higher education commences. The Government’s position on financial provision for higher education students would conflict with interpretation (i) because the Government does not provide free higher education. However, higher education is equally accessible to all in the UK on the basis that fees are not charged at the outset but paid by means of loans at a later stage in the student’s life. If interpretation (i) is correct, the Government believes other State parties (such as Australia and New Zealand) would also have problems with the implementation of Article 13(2)(c). Read more of this post

Sir Humphrey breaks up: change in Downing Street’s constitutional furniture

by Frederick Cowell

You may have missed it but God resigned last week. Don’t worry there won’t be four horsemen of the apocalypse thundering over the horizon – God in this case is the acronym of Sir Gus O’Donnell the Cabinet Secretary who after nearly six years at the head of the Civil Service is stepping down.  His resignation and replacement has marked the most significant constitutional reform the government has undertaken to date but it has fallen squarely into the category of the blink-and-you’ll-miss-it news story.

The traditional role of the Cabinet Secretary, since 1916, is three fold; firstly he (and it has always been a ‘he’)  sitting at the Prime Ministers right hand side runs the Cabinet, minuting the proceedings in long hand. Secondly he is head of the home civil service and finally, and perhaps most controversially,  he is the permanent advisor to the Office of the Prime Minister. They are not Alistair Campbell like figures they advise Prime Minsters of all stripes; Robin Butler served as Cabinet Secretary for Thatcher, Major and Blair.  The Cabinet Secretary exists to join government together and acts as a giant signal box for the Prime Minister  to convey  his instructions and orders to the Civil Service machine and is a living embodiment of the UK’s unwritten constitution. Read more of this post

Not easy, but right?

(c) Alex Folkes/Fishnik Photography

Tom McGuire

‘Not easy, but right.’ These were the buzzwords in Nick Clegg’s keynote speech to end the Liberal Democrat Conference in Birmingham on Wednesday afternoon. They underline the determined mood that has gripped his party of late, as they visibly gain confidence with time and experience in office.

There is no hint of an apology for what has happened but there was a stark admission that ‘no matter how hard you work on the details of a policy, it’s no good if the perception is wrong.’ This does not work well for a party previously accused of being unfit for government and not ready for power, it all makes Clegg seem hugely naïve. Read more of this post

Parties must not underestimate Wales’ electoral influence

(c) Steve Snodgrass

Anon

Wales has always been pivotal in deciding British rulers. In past years wars have decided the occupants of the royal throne, and voter preferences have decided the occupants of Number 10. The 2015 general election to the House of Commons will be no different.

Since Margaret (now Lady) Thatcher’s premiership, Scotland has shut itself off to Conservative MPs. In spite of a similar attitude, Wales has had many of their MPs over the last two decades. Interestingly, the 5.7% swing from Labour to the Tories suggests no bucking of the trend. Read more of this post

Let’s hope for real reform

(c) UK Parliament

Tim Johnston is a Labour Party activist and recent graduate

It doesn’t seem like there’s a lot of real reform going around, nor that much of it is being suggested. The Tories’ plans (which the Lib Dems are totally opposed to) of re-drawing the electoral boundaries and slashing the number of MPs from 650 to 600, is not real reform. The AV referendum, although very welcome, is not real reform.

There has been little in the way of real, ethical reform over the past several years. Perhaps the exceptions to this lack of real reform are negative too. The Terrorism Act, immigration law, a fake ‘reformed’ foreign policy (the idea that we are now a force for good as opposed to destruction) as well as reforms to education and welfare are very present: but they are not real. Read more of this post

Should we give the Lib Dems a break?

My colleague Postcode Politics argued recently that the Lib Dems should leave the coalition government. You have caused immeasurable harm to your party and your country, wrote PP. I agreed with almost every word. The Lib Dems are propping up an unelected government. They do not have enough sway around the Cabinet table to justify this situation. However, I am left feeling a bit uneasy about the whole thing. Part of me does want to say that the stick that Clegg and co are getting is a little undeserved. Read more of this post

The day democracy died

On Thursday the Great British electorate, in its infinite wisdom, chose to retain the first-past-the-post electoral system. I don’t blame them. Because it wasn’t t any day this week that democracy died. It was the day that the Liberal Democrats accepted the ‘miserable little compromise’ that is the alternative vote as an acceptable alternative to FPTP.

It is easy to be wise in hindsight. But the judgement of history must surely be that Clegg and his co-conspirators got this wrong. AV is an absurd electoral system. Beyond absurd. Giving one arbitrary group of voters a second vote has no justification whatsoever. As such the Yes campaign has been unable to put together a positive case for AV, and has been forced to make its pitch at a purely abstract level.

The principle at the root of FPTP is equally absurd from the point of view of democratic principles. But the system has a raw appeal in terms of simplicity, and of course the advantage of incumbency, crucial in a small-c conservative country usually quite reluctant to rock the boat unless it’s absolutely necessary.

It is absolutely necessary to change first-past-the-post. If the Lib Dems had not sold out on electoral reform in return for a few places at the Cabinet table, progressive forces may eventually have been able to coalesce around a real alternative. Now the chances of electoral reform are over for at least a generation.

But it gets worse. Whereas you might think that a referendum on AV is the very least the Lib Dems could have got out of their Conservative masters, they actually had to agree to a shameless Tory plan to carve up the constituency boundaries to serve their own interests.

So now we face a Conservative Party empowered by a referendum victory that was inevitable from the word go, shielded from public backlash against public spending cuts by their coalition partners, rigging the democratic process. Apparently they are also planning to withdraw support now from Clegg’s House of Lords reform agenda. All of this was entirely foreseeable.

It was also entirely unnecessary. The notion that the national interest needed coalition government is ridiculous. If they were so concerned about the deficit, the Lib Dems could simply have agreed to vote through a Conservative government’s spending plans, without necessarily agreeing to the rest of its right-wing agenda. The national interest may or may not have required these cuts, but it did not require Nick Clegg in the Cabinet Office, nor Vince Cable in a non-job at BIS – just as it does not require the marketization of the health service, middle-class tax cuts, war in Libya, and a dilution of banking reform.

Everyone finds it hard to admit when they’ve made a mistake. Mr Clegg, Mr Cable, Mr Huhne – you made a mistake. You have caused immeasurable harm to your party and your country. Don’t make it worse by digging in. Leave this coalition now. The Conservative Party did not win a general election, and by allowing them to govern as if they have, you are undermining everything you believe in.

Nick Clegg: when dreams turn to nightmares

A guest post by Chris Hurst

A year on from the 2010 General Election Nick Clegg must own up to one fact: the peculiar slump in Liberal Democrats’ support is Clegg’s responsibility alone – his Party may not be able to tolerate his market liberalism for much longer.

‘I must be the only politician in the space of a week to go from Churchill to a Nazi’, Nick Clegg joked during the General Election campaign as he attempted to shrug off right wing smears from the Tory press. Now the tables are turned and the vitriol is supplied by the left. To quote contestants of reality TV, for Nick Clegg it has been a ‘journey’.

So what accounts for Clegg voyage into notoriety? And why is it that the Liberal Democrats have singularly taken the hit of public anger over the direction of the Coalition Government?

Clearly Nick Clegg has not helped himself. A series of policy u-turns has diminished the Party’s credibility as the torch-bearers of new politics. In May, he stood as the candidate who would defy the political establishment and the ‘two old Parties’. Now he stands as the archetypal Westminster insider.

By forming an unlikely coalition with his Party’s great enemy, Clegg was always going to risk antagonizing the social liberal wing of the Liberal Democrats. For decades, polling has suggested Lib Dem Party members overwhelmingly describe themselves as left of centre. Despite these facts, some of Clegg’s supporters claim the membership is fully supportive of the government. They point to the unanimous endorsement given to the coalition agreement at a specially convened Party gathering on May 16th last year.

However, Party members were effectively coerced into supporting an arrangement which had already been formed five days previously. Top Liberal Democrats had already been sworn in as cabinet members and Clegg had been made Deputy Prime Minister. The so-called ‘triple-lock’, requiring the leader to seek agreement from the wider Party, had already been prised open.

The seeds of betrayal had been set in motion.

Still, back in May 2010, Clegg’s personal popularity remained high. Despite his Party’s seeming failure at the ballot box where they lost five seats – thanks in large part to a lethargic last week of campaigning – the Lib Dems actually increased their share of the vote by 1% and 800,000 voters. Clegg himself had enjoyed a comprehensive victory in his own constituency of Sheffield Hallam. He holds a majority of over 15,000. It is hard to believe, but in May Conservative commentator Nile Gardiner claimed Clegg was ‘beyond doubt the most left-wing major UK politician in a generation’.

But almost from the moment the Coalition was formed the Liberal Democrats began to lose support. Their leader could have been excused for his calm response to this development. People needed time to get used to the idea of Party’s cooperating in the national interest. A similar dip in the polls occurred after the 2005 election, shortly after Charles Kennedy had led the Party to its best results in over 80 years.

Labour’s accusations of Lib Dem betrayal rang hollow. After all, the Labour party had presided over a period which saw the 10p tax band scrapped and the war in Iraq. Labour was leaderless and directionless, wavering between the liberal Ed Miliband and his Blairite brother, David.

The warning signs for left liberals were there though. Starting with the Lib Dem volte-face over VAT, the Coalition agreement was about to undermine what it had meant to be a Liberal Democrats for over a decade and arguably for much of the twentieth century.

The only Party to remain opposed to nuclear power caved in when in August the Environment Cabinet minister, Chris Huhne, agreed to a new wave of nuclear stations, provided they were not financed by government. His claim that his position on nuclear power has ‘always been much misunderstood’ looked laughable when contrasted with his 2006 statement:Not only does nuclear cause a great threat to the environment through the large amounts of waste produced, but it is also economically unviable’.

Huhne’s new enthusiasm for nuclear power – now tested by the disaster at Fukushima – and his insistence that he had not changed his mind over the issue goes to the very heart of Lib Dem problems. Rather than accept that they are having to support Conservative policies they actually oppose, Clegg and his Lib Dem cabinet colleges adopted a policy of total unity with David Cameron’s Tory agenda. Clegg adamantly resisted ‘artificial rows’ with the Conservative leader.

It is this approach which has severely damaged Nick Clegg and led to the accusation he is a turncoat. The criticism of backbench tuition fee rebel Greg Mulholland – that Clegg ‘has done a very good job as Deputy Prime Minister but he also needs to show that he remains the right person to get out and communicate with our members’ – is gaining support among the grassroots. Certainly Mulhollnad underlines a growing concern within the Liberal Democrats at Clegg’s neglect of his party in pursuit of government goals.

The entire tuition fee debate is a vivid example of Clegg’s double standards. It was no secret that Clegg and fellow Orange Book liberals like David Laws had long sought to abolish the Party’s policy on fees – only for the Party members to force it upon them. Their compromise position to abolish fees over six years should have ended the conflict. The Party willingly trumpeted their opposition to University fees at the General Election; and the dreaded pledge committed candidates to a very public promise. It helped the Party hold on to their seats in University towns such as Cambridge, Cardiff, Bristol, Edinburgh, Manchester, Leeds, and fuelled Clegg’s massive win in Sheffield.

Clegg went back on his word. The unapologetic way he went about selling his u-turn – his insistence that the rise was fair and progressive – has greatly contributed to the public’s loss of trust in the man. Once a political identity is established, it becomes almost impossible to change it.

Left-wing Liberal Democrats should worry. Clegg has surrounded himself with a band of fellow travellers of the market liberal wing of his party who claim that much public anger is merely down to a failure of communication – but his problems as a politician go much deeper.

At the General Election Clegg promised, above all, a new brand of politics – one with ‘no more broken promises’. His performance during the Prime Ministerial TV debates, as he looked into the camera with puppy-dog eyes, had convinced viewers that there could be a new way of doing things if only the Liberal Democrats were in charge. The two old Parties have let you down. Yet in office Clegg has proven to be the epitome of old politics. The Coalition deal was extremely undemocratic: proposals on education, the NHS, the rise in VAT and the rate and savagery of spending cuts were never put to the electorate. No wonder there is a growing sense that this government has no mandate.

The feeling Clegg has betrayed his voters is understandable. Long-surviving and loyal Party members have resigned on principle and the Liberal Democrats have taken a huge hit in the opinion polls. Interestingly the Conservatives have not. But the issues on which the Conservative Party have had to compromise do not strike at the heart of what it is to be a Conservative voter. Yes, for the likes of the Daily Mail, there is disappointment they will not scrap the Human Rights Act, an inheritance tax cut will not be introduced and capital gains tax has risen. But these compromises do not threaten fundamental tax-and-spend policies which go to the core of Tory thinking. The Government is successfully going about dismantling the state throughout the public sector and freeing up private enterprise much as it promised.

For the Liberal Democrats, on the other hand, the story is very different. Its electoral success over the last decade has rested very much on its appearance as the conscience of the Labour Party. It was the Lib Dems who first fought the battle for increased investment in public service with its 1p in the pound tax policy under Paddy Ashdown. The Party’s drift leftwards was underscored by Charles Kennedy – whose leadership opposed the Blair government’s increasing attempts to privatize higher education; advocated raising the top rate of income tax to 50p; and bravely opposed the Iraq War.

Being asked to compromise on much-cherished policies on public services, tuition fees and nuclear power undermines the Party’s identity.

In the end, Clegg has always wanted to move the Party rightwards. He was a notable contributor to the Orange Book which stressed market oriented solutions for the public sector. He commented at the Hay festival in 2010, ‘I am not a man of the left, I am a liberal’ – as if the two were mutually exclusive. He is also one of few Party leaders to shun support from the left: ‘The Lib Dems never were and aren’t a receptacle for left-wing dissatisfaction with the Labour Party. There is no future for that; there never was.

Soon, he may find out there is no future for the Party to Labour’s right either.

If UK politics were Tottenham Hotspur, then coalition government would be David Beckham

If UK politics were Tottenham Hotspur, then coalition government would be David Beckham: it may have worked well under different conditions in the past, but everybody knows deep down that it’s already past its peak. It turns up, looks pretty, basks in the hype for a while, but never really delivers – then succumbs to its inevitable shortcomings before limping off back to the Never-Never Land of world football.

LeftCentral reported a few weeks ago on the gradual desertion of Lib Dem luminaries from the government camp. Since then, Vince Cable has been humiliated around the Cabinet table after being left armourless in his war on Murdoch, and Simon Hughes has been getting increasingly anxious about the direction of health and welfare reforms. We may well be witnessing the beginning of the end of the new politics.

And if yesterday’s panicked announcement on the bank levy was George Osborne’s way of getting tough on the institutions that brought the UK economy to the brink of collapse, before demanding the kind of hand-outs that are now being stripped from their victims, then surely one or two more Liberal Democrats will be getting twitchy. They won’t be pleased to hear that the Conservatives receive more than half of their donations in the City of London – the Tories and the City are the real coalition governing this country.

Major League Soccer in the US might be the Never-Never Land of world football, but it can also be compared to the prospects of minority government in UK politics. No matter how hard you try, no matter how big your society is, or how fat your cheque book, it just isn’t going to work. So Becks may well be back in a few months, wearing a different strip perhaps.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,300 other followers