'Downloading power'

With apologies - a very busy day means that I haven't had time to digest today's 'Power Report'.

This list of main recommendations (lifted from The Independent) should, I hope, give you enough to talk about...

1. A responsive electoral system for the House of Commons, House of Lords and local councils to replace the first-past-the-post system.
2. The closed party list system to be replaced.
3. The Electoral Commission to encouragewomen, ethnic minorities, people on lower incomes, young people and independents to stand.
4. The voting and candidacy age should be reduced to 16.
5. Automatic voter registration at age 16 to be introduced.
6. Donations from individuals and organisations to parties to be capped.
7. State funding for local activity by political parties.
8. Text voting or e-mail voting only after other reforms.
9. 70 per cent of the House of Lords should be elected by a 'responsive electoral system' for three parliamentary terms.
10. Select committees should get enhanced powers.
11. Limits on power of the whips.
12. Parliament should be ableto initiate legislation, launch inquiries and act on petitions.
13. A decentralisation of powers.
14. Local government should be able to raise taxes and administer its own finances.
15. Meetings of ministers with business, including lobbyists, to be listed every month.
16. All public bodies to involve the public in their policy- making processes.
17. Citizens to initiate legislative processes, public inquiries and hearings into public bodies.
18. Rules on plurality of media ownership to be reformed.
19. Public service broadcasters to involve viewers in matters of public importance.
20. MPs to be required and resourced to produce annual reports and hold AGMs.
21. A new independent National Statistical and Information Service to provide information free of political spin.

Comments

[malcolm]

An interesting set of proposals but I would be very interested to see why they chosen to make these recommendations.
I violently disagree with some ie 1,7&8 and further wonder how 3,11,& 21 will be enforced.

[James Bethell]

I havent read the whole thing, but if this long list of structural tinkering and irrelevant legislative time-wasting is the best they could come up with, then the future's pretty bleak for voting.

Isn't the answer for politicians to start addressing issues that young people genuinely care about?

Voting amongst young people in the 2004 Presidential election shot up because there was a clear difference between the two candidates on subjects young people really cared about including the war, but also social policy, tax and public services.

[Andrew Woodman]

Although I have sympathy with many of these recommendations, I wonder if Britian is ready for a true democracy yet. I doubt whether many of these ideas will be taken on board. Turkeys voting for chrsitmas springs to mind.

[Tory T]

We should be extremely wary of this report. It is leftist in origin and orientation - chaired by Old Labour peer Helena Kennedy and funded by the Lib Dem-leaning Joseph Rowntree Trust - and many of its conclusions are either predictable (electoral reform/STV) or risible (votes for 16-year olds).

For me, the giveaway is Chapter 7, on extending democracy through citizen-initiated referenda. It's a very good idea (based on the highly-successful Swiss model) but, there in the middle of the suggested rules, is a caveat that tells you everything about the people who wrote the Power Report: judges can strike down any initiative, at any stage, that they deem to be in conflict with the Human Rights Act.

So if we get a million signatures together on the proposal that convicted prisoners should not have access to hard-core pornography in prison then it wouldn't even get to a vote because the courts have already ruled that this is a 'human right' under the HRA.

When will Tories - are you listening Dominic Grieve - realise that the Human Rights Act is the institutionalisation of liberal mores and the placing of certain key leftist positions beyond the reach of democratic debate and deliberation?

[michael]

"Donations from individuals and organisations to parties to be capped."

Why?! This would only help the Lib Dems who don't get any and make politics boring.

Individuals should be free to donate as much of their money as they want to. We all know it buys influence in the Labour Party, but that's something the media can expose and voters can cast their verdict on.

[James Maskell]

This report is funny. Not much more to say, its a good laugh to pass the time with. Its too soft and is pandering. No Government would do all this because its going too far.

[EU Serf]

The biggest reason that people are turned off politics is they feel like nothing is under their control.

Forget votes at 16 or other gimmicks and really give power to the people. ie. take away the state's power to make our decisions for us.

[James Burdett]

The issue I have the most problem with is candidacy at 16. I think there are sound reasons for actually having an older age for candidacy than voting. In the US for instance certain offices are restricted to over 35's and there is no great rush to change that. Political office whilst technically not subject to any specific requirement is in the minds of most voters subject to certain undefinable requirements of 'life experience'. Any 16 year old candidate would probably get slaughtered!!

[William Norton]

If it wasn't obvious from the recommendations themselves, this is just the usual Rowntree-funded left-liberal guff. These are the nutters who thought that regional government was a brilliant wheeze (rejected by 78% to 22% in the only electoral test it has ever received).

A responsive electoral system for the House of Commons, House of Lords and local councils to replace the first-past-the-post system.
English translation: Pro-PR propaganda to rig the system.

The closed party list system to be replaced.
It was the people who pushed PR who landed us with that daft idea in the first place. This is more pro-STV PR propaganda.

The Electoral Commission to encouragewomen, ethnic minorities, people on lower incomes, young people and independents to stand.
More tick-box governance and form-filling. The Electoral Commission is a waste of space and should be abolished.

The voting and candidacy age should be reduced to 16.
A cretinous idea.

Automatic voter registration at age 16 to be introduced.
Ditto. Would boost voting fraud possibilities.

Donations from individuals and organisations to parties to be capped.
I mean, we can't have people spending their own money the way they want to, can we? What about limits on political campaigning by pressure groups?

State funding for local activity by political parties.
Beats working for a living by persuading people to actually give you their own money.

Text voting or e-mail voting only after other reforms.
Even ODPM concede this is a fantastically uneconomic idea.

70 per cent of the House of Lords should be elected by a 'responsive electoral system' for three parliamentary terms.
English translation: let's rig the Lords via PR and we don't have to worry about losing control of the Commons.

Select committees should get enhanced powers.
Not a bad idea - how did that get through?

Limits on power of the whips.
What powers are those? Can they arrest anyone? Put backbenchers to death? The whips run things because there are enough backbenchers open to persuasion. This probably means - a licence for grandstanding has-been backbenchers.

Parliament should be able to initiate legislation, launch inquiries and act on petitions.
Actually, it already can, it's just that the ability to do so has been strangled by the refusal of backbenchers to stand up to the whips, and a cynical use of standing orders. Change the standing orders.

A decentralisation of powers.
I was wondering when our old friend regional government was going to make an appearance. I don't think they mean privatisation/abolition, do you?

Local government should be able to raise taxes and administer its own finances.
Sounds a good idea, but only credible in a system where central taxation is reduced and the state does less. So, this probably means in English: let's have a local income tax and a return to loony-left councils.

Meetings of ministers with business, including lobbyists, to be listed every month.
More tick-box governance.

All public bodies to involve the public in their policy- making processes.
A charter for pressure-group politics and a licence for know-it-all busy-bodies.

Citizens to initiate legislative processes, public inquiries and hearings into public bodies.
A charter for pressure-group politics and a licence for know-it-all busy-bodies.

Rules on plurality of media ownership to be reformed.
I mean, we'll never stop people voting for right-wing parties until we've smashed Murdoch, will we?

Public service broadcasters to involve viewers in matters of public importance.
A charter for pressure-group politics and a licence for know-it-all busy-bodies.

MPs to be required and resourced to produce annual reports and hold AGMs.
More tick-box governance.

A new independent National Statistical and Information Service to provide information free of political spin.
My God - another sensible idea!

So, out of 21 recommendations, only about two-and-a-half are really any good, and 2 of them really require a 'cultural change' among political parties rather than anything structural. The rest are duff. You wouldn't hire a stockbroker on that basis.

People will start voting when they have something worth voting for (or against).

[Rob Largan]

What are they recommending to replace first-past-the-post with? I cant think of a superior system?

A lot of the recommendation from this report seem very superficial.

[Adrian Owens]

Debated these issues at Lancaster University last week with students from CF and the Labour Club. Most of the proposals could have been spouted by my fellow panel member from the Electoral Reform Society.

There are two or three recommendations here that would make a difference, but with the majority of our law originating from Brussels and the political parties hardly daring to be different, these proposals, as a whole, are merely tinkering at the edges.

[Ted]

This is a very Lib Dem view of what needs to be done mixed with the anti-Executive agenda (strengthen parliament stuff) and a dig at Murdoch.

I read the whole report and it struck me that the report had (could have) been written before the work - public were consulted through limited polling and a couple of focus groups but recommendations are what you'd get in one evening from a few progressive Labour & Liberal democrate life peers putting their ideas down in House of Lords bar.

[Ted]

Editor - still think putting all 30 recs on a voting page would be a good idea.

[Donal Blaney]

If we are going down the route of a wholly or largely elected second chamber, it should continue to be a revising chamber, inferior to the Commons, but maybe it could be responsible for approving the Executive's appointments (eg to quangos) in the same way the Senate has committees that review Presidential appointments in the United States.

I also suggest that, to safeguard the interests of the countryside, the new second chamber is weighted in favour of the counties such that Kent, Surrey, Sussex et al (well, maybe not Sussex - j/k) each get one or two "senators" as it has always struck me that the Commons over-represents the interests of the metropolitan elites. Alternatively I could be about to become a political anorak for even discussing such minutiae...

[Editor]

I don't have the technology, Ted!

[Tory T]

Sorry, I forgot to point out the other proposal that gives the game away - wealthy individuals to be capped at £10,000 but organisations (ie - trade unions) allowed to donate £100 per member.

Don't agree with William Norton that citizen-initiated referenda are a charter for pressure groups and busybodies. Au contraire - these are the people who make the running under the current system. A Swiss-style system would allow the silent majority to call the shots on tiny minorities who claim to speak for the rest of us.

One question: why do you think Switzerland hasn't joined the EU despite the fact that many Swiss politicians are keen?

[Sean Fear]

"A responsive electoral system for the House of Commons, House of Lords and local councils to replace the first-past-the-post system. "

PR has the potential to bring currently underrepresented groups into the system - but I doubt if members of this commission would welcome a big increase in representation locally for UKIP and BNP.

Overall, FPTP does have one crucial advantage in that you can chuck out a failing administration. PR enables all sorts of carve ups that have nothing to do with the electorate.

"The closed party list system to be replaced. "

Agree.

"The Electoral Commission to encouragewomen, ethnic minorities, people on lower incomes, young people and independents to stand. "

Ultimately, you can't force people who stand who don't want to.

"The voting and candidacy age should be reduced to 16.
Automatic voter registration at age 16 to be introduced. "

No, 16 is too young to vote and definitely too young to be a councillor.

"Donations from individuals and organisations to parties to be capped."

No. People should be free to give what they want.

"State funding for local activity by political parties. "

Certainly not. Why should I pay for people I don't agree with to campaign? And why should parties that can't raise the sums necessary to campaign locally (which are hardly huge) be kept afloat by the taxpayer?"

"Text voting or e-mail voting only after other reforms. "

No strong views.

"70 per cent of the House of Lords should be elected by a 'responsive electoral system' for three parliamentary terms."

No strong views. William Norton's suggestion is a good one.

"Select committees should get enhanced powers. "

Agree.

"Limits on power of the whips."

Unworkable in practice.

"Parliament should be ableto initiate legislation, launch inquiries and act on petitions."

Parliament already has such powers.

"A decentralisation of powers.
Local government should be able to raise taxes and administer its own finances."

If, but only if, taxation at central level is reduced by an equivalent amount.

"Meetings of ministers with business, including lobbyists, to be listed every month. "

Will achieve nothing.

"All public bodies to involve the public in their policy- making processes."

Consultation exercises of this type achieve nothing. We elect politicians to take decisions.

"Citizens to initiate legislative processes, public inquiries and hearings into public bodies. "

Okay if it does mean referenda on the Swiss model - but the existence of the Human Rights Act robs this of much effectiveness.

"Rules on plurality of media ownership to be reformed. "

No. This is a restraint on freedom.

"Public service broadcasters to involve viewers in matters of public importance."

Pointless.

"MPs to be required and resourced to produce annual reports and hold AGMs."

They do already.

"A new independent National Statistical and Information Service to provide information free of political spin"

That one's really going to get off the ground.

There are several elephants in the room:-

1. The leeching away of power to the EU has lessened the importance of political life in this country, and hence lessened public willingness to vote and participate;

2. Likewise, removing power from the voters by way of the Human Rights Act (and European Convention on Human Rights)

3. Likewise, the determination of the three main parties to fight on a square foot of territory they call the centre ground.

[Elena]

As long as they don't call the House of Lords "The Second Chamber" like the Times reported NuLab was planning to earlier on in the year.

[James Morris]

Tend to agree with comments. These seem to be a fairly limited series of recommendations given the scope of the inquiry. Not very imaginative.

[Chris Palmer]

My initial response (not having read what others have written):

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No
7. No
8. No
9. No
10. Not sure
11. No
12. Not sure
13. No - though depends on powers
14. Not sure - again depends
15. Yes
16. No
17. No
18. No
19. No
20. No
21. No

[Edward]

James Burdett: I agree with you candidacy at 16 is ridiculous, but I also think votes at 16 is ridiculous. Where I strongly disagree with you is on having any distinction at all between the voting age and the candidacy age.

If a 16 year old candidate would get slaughtered, as you say, what on earth is wrong with them standing? Surely we believe in democracy and the will of the people or we don't. As soon as you are deemed old enough to make informed contributions and decisions to the democratic process then you ought to be responsible enough to be chosen as a result of that.

If you need to be 35 to "know about the world" as an office-holder then how can anyone younger possibly express a valid opinion with their vote? Or is, as I prefer, the distinction rot?

[Richard]

Of course it doesn't occur to these people that low turnout may be due to politicians failing to represent public opinion on various issues. For example, all three major parties are opposed to the restoration of the death penalty and the renationalisation of British Rail - policies which, if opinion polls are to be believed, have traditionally commanded strong public support. Support for withdrawal from the EU has fluctuated from between 30% and 50% but none of the major parties represent this viewpoint. In short, there are issues that the three major parties all agree on despite public opposition. The downside of FPTP (which I still prefer to PR) is that it prevents smaller parties that might be more in line with public opinion from emerging to knock the larger parties out of their complacency.

[David Surtees]

Votes at 18 should remain and should not be msde younger. Noone ever realises how expensive it is to be a Candidate these days. Candidates at 21 seems almost too young these days so 18 or 16 is just laughable. Just why do the Electoral Commission want to encourage more diverse candidates? They will only get elected if Political Parties select them. I have always been against State Funding but I know only too well how much it costs Associations and individuals to compete these days. I would still resist State funding.

This is fascinating stuff but frighteningly like Government quango "nannying" of the democratic process. ...and anything other than first past the post will be dreadful. I know of a number of LD members who have said that even they did not use their second vote in the leadership election. so much for proportiional voting!

[Andrew]

Voting rights at 16 seems a bit dubious at first, but what about no taxation w/out representation? Anyway, you'd probably only get about 10% of them voting :-)

Also, if you're going to exclude 16yr olds for the (admittedly fair enough) reason that they're a bit ignorant/stupid, then by logical extension you must do the same to millions of Sun, Mirror and Mail readers. While the latter may be tempting, it wouldn't be exactly democratic. Neither is a voting age limit of 18.

[Elena]

I don't think "ignorance" is the main reason for arguing against 16 year olds voting. It's not mine, anyway. However, I do strongly believe that voting should be linked to the legal age of adulthood, because then (apart from a select few things) most things are open to you as a legal adult. And I think it's right that you should vote as a legal adult to whom the vote is going to impact in day to day life. A 16 year old could vote for a high-tax party but not feel the rammifications of that decision.

[James Maskell]

I disagree with the idea of reducing the age of voting and candidacy. A 16 year old kid cant comprehend the world around them, certainly not at a level which would allow them to make a real choice. The old excuse is given that you can fight for your country, pay taxes, have sex and move out at age 16 but still, voting is a big thing to do and the average 16 year old isnt mature enough to make that decision. Candidates must be 21 and above. Standing for office is a very big thing, bigger than voting. Its a public service and thousands of people rely on you to make things easier for them. Its not taken lightly and requires a mature attitude and a way of the world. Your decisions affect the lives of countless numbers of people. Vote at 18, stand for office at 21 is fair.

[Richard]

The only other countries in the world that have a voting age of 16 are, ironically, some of the most undemocratic. We are not out of step or old fashioned by having a franchise at 18.

[Andrew]

"A 16 year old kid cant comprehend the world around them, certainly not at a level which would allow them to make a real choice."

Neither can most tabloid readers.

[John Hustings]

Why would lowering the voting age to 16 discourage apathy? If 18 year olds and 21 year olds aren't voting, it doesn't make much sense to me that the answer is to extend the right. Am I the only one who can't connect these dots?

[James Burdett]

Edward, I dont say that there necessarily should be a different age for votes and candidates. A limit of 18 for both I could support. I think that in respect of democratic engagement we should take a stand against the idea that engagement begins and ends at the ballot box, it doesnt!! Would we ignore a petition from a group of 15,16 or 17 year olds because they don't have a vote! I doubt it!!!