What next for reform?

Followers of my tweets or fb updates will not be surprised that I am relieved at the outcome of the recent referendum on the electoral system. I am not a fan of referendums since the underlying question is always ‘Do you like/agree with the government?’ and even despite a split in the current government’s position on the issue, this was still a huge part of the reaction. Without going into all the accusations and assertions made by both campaigns, I am not pessimistic about reform and think there is room for change in the reasonably near future. This is not, in my view, a ‘once in a generation’ issue because, quite frankly, these days nothing is. The nature of media scrutiny and the increased accessibility of all public figure, especially politicians, mean that the ‘half-life’ of issues (and governments!) is shortening year on year. Of course the Lib Dems forgot the golden rule of referendums – never hold a referendum until you are sure of the answer!

In the short-term, what have we lost? Obviously, we have lost AV as an alternative to FPTP. This is fantastic news – it is not PR and should never have been marketed as such. I think there was, in part, a reaction against tinkering as the answer to demands for reform. When it returns, we need to give people a real option.

I think we have also lost the opportunity for a fully democratic House of Lords. The preferred option of the Progressive Left was an Upper House based on PR but how can this stand when it would create a more representative chamber than the Commons? We are already seeing an increase in bolshiness from peers – more democratic legitimacy will be grist to their mill. So where does that leave reformers? Do we press on in the hope that any gridlock will force a change in the way we elect the Commons? Or do we leave well enough alone until the Commons is reformed for fear of being stuck with a compromise no-one wants?

I was struck by something Shirley Williams said in response to the failure of the referendum. For the UK outside England, FPTP is now only used for the Westminister election. This has been the case for N Ireland for over three decades and for Scotland and Wales almost since devolution. There is a real sense in which FPTP is an English system of democracy and may become discredited as such. Having said that, because of the Labour Party, all parts of the UK have now experienced at least one form of PR – STV for Europe and in N Ireland, AMS or Additional Vote for Scotland, Wales and London. If there is to be a change in Westminster, we must embed and increase voters’ experiences of PR so that they can weigh up the pros and cons for themselves.

So what can be achieved in this Parliament? We could start with the system for the European Parliament. Why not move to an ‘open list’ system, as in the Senate elections in Australia, with voters given the option of choosing individuals as well as parties? We could retain an ‘above the line’ vote where voters can also choose a party instead of individuals. A small change – and bigger ballot papers – but an important response to voters’ wishes.

Secondly, why not enable local authorities in England and Wales, to adopt a form of PR for local and mayoral contests? As Labour allowed local referendums to change to directly-elected mayors, surely the Tory-led government could do more than pay lip-service to their localism agenda, and provide enabling legislation to this effect in terms of voting system. Most wards are already multi-member making it ideal for STV rather than having to explain time and again that voters have three votes!

And we could embrace Billy Bragg’s suggestion for the Upper House in the short-term and allow for say 80-90% of the Lords to be appointed in proportion to amount of overall party support at the General Election. The introduction of minimum quotas would ensure extremists are kept out and doing on a 4-nations basis would allow for Nationalists and N Ireland parties to be fairly respresented. The remaining 10-20% could be appointed as expert crossbenchers by commission established by the House itself. Take out the ministers, abolish select committees from the Lords and replace it with ministers appearing from the Commons to answer questions on the floor of the Chamber, reduce the number to half the size of the Commons and restrict its number of sitting days so that members can retain outside professional commitments.

It’s not perfect, it’s not democratic in the true sense, but it would enable the work of the Upper Chamber to continue in a more transparent and legitimate way.

The referendum last Thursday should have been about the failures of FPTP. Instead it became about AV as a ‘miserable little compromise’ and the leadership of Nick Clegg. But we’re not back to square one on reform. With a bit of imagination we can see change for the better before this Parliament is out.