'Go to conservatives.com now and decide which tax you want cut...'

Will it be Hillary? No. Will it be John Edwards? Not any more. Will it be Bill Richardson? Possibly. Will it be Evan Bayh or Tim Kaine? Both men come from key states and are more likely.

Barack Obama's pick for the Vice Presidential slot is one of the most hotly-discussed issues in American politics.  And who will know first?  Unless it leaks it will be all those Americans who sign up for email or text alerts from the Obama campaign.  As The Guardian notes, this is just the latest example of Team Obama's revolutionary use of the internet to produce the best-funded and best-supported campaign in US political history.

Last week we discussed what CCHQ should do with conservatives.com.  Here's another idea.  David Cameron cannot recruit email addresses with a promise to reveal his VP pick but what if he gave voters the opportunity to decide two or three key aspects of his manifesto?  For example:

• George Osborne could decide that the Tories would cut £3bn in his first budget (forget for the moment that tax cuts are probably off his agenda) and he could ask voters whether they wanted the relief to be targeted on, say, council tax, higher income tax thresholds or a cut in stamp duty. People could take part in an online debate and then vote. The vote would be binding.

It would be important that these online votes weren't used to determine core beliefs.  Conservatives.com wouldn't be asking people to decide whether the party was a tax cutting or tax increasing party, but which tax could be cut.  Such online votes would be the first serious steps by a British political party to acknowledge the internet age.  Votes could also help to decide which Bills would be the first priority of an incoming Conservative government.  What do you think?

Comments

[Norm Brainer]

I do like the idea that it's flattening the structure so that mere mortal party members may get to be heard.

I don't like the idea that such things are binding - situations can change rapidly and it may become highly inappropriate to do something that's been voted for.
BUT if they don't do it they'd have to put a damn good explaination as to why they decided that.

[grumpy old man]

"People could take part in an online debate and then vote. The vote would be binding."
Tim, the Left would mobilise every supporter in the land to commit a Tory Govt to a socialist policy. Did you mean to say "the vote would NOT be binding"?
The general idea, of allowing public opinion to come up with preferences for Bills, is a good one, but what happens if the public vote in support of a Bill to bring back hanging for Capital offences or to severely limit EU immigration? Such Bills would be overwhelmingly popular but politically suicidal. I would allow any Govt. to have some wriggle-room and put a caveat that such a vote would be indicative only until backed by a national poll carried out by a reputable pollster, then treated as advisory rather than binding. It would also mean the the Dept. concerned would have to issue a full explanation as to the advisibility of implementation.
I have tremendous respect and admiration for all you have done with this site, but in this case, have I got totally the wrong end of the stick or do could you do with a holiday?

[Tim Montgomerie]

grumpy old man: My proposal is more modest than you suggest. Please read my last paragraph in particular. The online community we would create would not determine core beliefs but would be circumscribed. Would Labour really benefit from encouraging their massed ranks to vote for a cut in council tax, income tax or stamp duty? We would end up with many people on our website though and hopefully getting involved in other Tory activities.

[Sally Roberts]

Grumpy Old Man I do tend to agree with you on this one! Tim have you never realised that all the TV votes for X Factor, Big Brother and the like are heavily rigged with the same people tapping their phones again...and again....and again....? It would be exactly the same with this!

[Sammy Finn]

I like this idea.

There would need to be safeguards to stop multiple voting but we need to move to a system where real voters are more empowered.

[David Belchamber]

"It would be important that these online votes weren't used to determine core beliefs".

Direct canvassing of opinions is the way to go but I take issue with you, Tim, on your fundamental point. We send MPs to Westminster to represent us in Parliament and I believe we should have a say in conservative policy to feed into the manifesto. David Cameron has done a marvellous job but team Cameron have make some glaring mistakes on the way; why should we not challenge these and - collectively - come up with an improved version?

Having said that, if multiple voters and trolls can be eliminated, then I think your idea is excellent.

[Dorian Grape]

If the t’interweb was a pub then conservatives.com is the lounge bar where the pace is sedate and nicely-nicely, conservativehome is the public bar where the conversation is more robust and ambitious and the Guardian’s Comment is Free is a fist fight in the car park.

All venues share the same limitation in terms of the breadth and extent of the commentariat that contribute. A rather limited number of the usual suspects bringing ego, prejudice and agenda like that rather irritating Dorian Grape chap. Ergo, how meaningful in terms of the general electorate would the non-binding choices be?

Is there a risk that the outcome would be politics by petition rather than conviction?

‘Such Bills would be overwhelmingly popular but politically suicidal.’ Grumpy old man

But then again how can something overwhelmingly popular be politically suicidal?

Do we see ourselves as above the masses because we linger online?

[john parkes]

What would be the value of limited referendums of this sort? Perhaps in theory, the ideal in all circumstances would be for those who are voting to make their decisions, based on full knowledge of the facts. Voting would then take place to decide the most appropriate solution to the problem involved. However I think it is safe to say that no electorate of any sort is ever in possession of enough facts (other than those provided by sources with their own axes to grind); is free from bias that is sometimes even unrelated to the issue in question or, indeed has the judgement to make an informed choice. For this reason surely there can only be a very limited justification for the widespread introduction of a referendum of any sort, particularly one that is binding in its result.
We elect our representatives to parliament based on our views of their suitability to exercise their judgement on our behalf (and not as delegates merely sent to vote at our direction). While Tim`s proposal might be useful in showing our representatives which way the wind is blowing among the activists, ie those who are concerned enough to vote, it can only offer one of the factors to be taken into account by those whom we have empowered to make decisions on our behalf; or to be ignored if that is what they decide. It might be of more value if we were to continue to scrutinise the quality of those we elect as our representatives and perhaps turn more to those who have a rather wider experience than that offered by the school - university- research assistant- MP route that is now in vogue.

[James Maskell]

Party members to get a say...nice try Tories but April Fools isnt for some time. Weve heard this democracy bs before from Cameron. Membership reform was a disgusting manipulation of Associations controlled from CCHQ and Maude should be ashamed of himself for that.

As I recall doesn't the Conservatives already have such a system through the SUSU? The idea above is so open to abuse its not even worth trying it.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Nice idea, but why don't we get rid of the worst taxes first, i.e. VAT and Employer's National Insurance?

Once we've done that (and left the EU), the next step is to flatten income tax (increase personal allowance, get rid of tax breaks for high earners).

And also roll Council Tax, SDLT, IHT and Business Rates into Land Value Tax to prevent booms and busts in house prices (and hence in the economy as a whole).

[RichardJ]

"The general idea, of allowing public opinion to come up with preferences for Bills, is a good one, but what happens if the public vote in support of a Bill to bring back hanging for Capital offences or to severely limit EU immigration? Such Bills would be overwhelmingly popular but politically suicidal."

Why would those be politically suicidal? The USA still has the death penalty and the UK is almost exceptional in not having limits on EU immigration.

[John W]

This idea is bordering on the farcical - take a moment to think clearly about what you're actually suggesting.

The tale of Mr Splashy Pants the Greenpeace Whale should serve as a lesson in internet democracy.

[RichardJ]

"And also roll Council Tax, SDLT, IHT and Business Rates into Land Value Tax to prevent booms and busts in house prices (and hence in the economy as a whole)."

LVT is a good idea but it won't end the business cycle.

[Eveleigh Moore-Dutton]

I suppose any good debate needs to have someone prepared to play devil's advocate - so - while I find the idea attractive ...here goes. You say that the result of the poll should be binding; just how would you do this and in what circumstances? Would a member of the public be able to take the government to court if it decided that, for example, strengthening the armed forces would be a higher priority than cutting the tax decided on by the poll.

There are also questions around the role of a democratically elected government - would this become government by opinion poll where the will of certain people responding to issues that are the hot topics in, say, the Daily Mail on a particular day would prevail. Do we not elect members of parliament for their judgement and ability to "take the long view" about what is best for the interests of the whole nation even if this sometimes means that they may be temporarily unpopular? MP's should be able to put the interests of the nation above their own personal interests or short term ambitions. Yes, I can hear the hollow laughter too but unless we aspire to make things as they should be we cannot stop the slide in standards we see all around us.

Thirdly we need to recognise the constructive tension that can and should exist between our desire to "write Conservative government policy" and the need to govern for all the nation. Some people do need a nanny state and some can be weaned off it but it takes time.

[Opinicus]

We do have a lot of rather unimaginative people above, terrified of the popular will.

I think it's a very good idea. As outlined, CCHQ would keep complete control of the agenda and the choice would be just a large focus group. The result doesn't have to be absolutely binding but if it was followed several times then the momentum to use the site would grow considerably amongst the unreached and currently apathetic public. And the email address list it created would be worth millions.

Not a snowball's chance of CCHQ's bien pensants risking even that degree of populism though, is there?

[christina Speight]

The great fallacy and undemocratic nature of this proposal is the arrogant assumption that internet users in any way represent the population. We who haunt the thing should get real and know that the idea of getting involved with political argy-bargy is anathema to most of the population . With all the double-voting checks and safeguards in the world we can't have our policies decided by a collection consisting of nerds (I include myself in that description)

I run an e-mail political news service with hundreds of readers and tap into those who can't be bothered with surfing the internet. (It includes some very prominent politicians! ) They tell me that they just haven't time in a busy life to chase around in circles reading blogs and websites.

YouGov was faced with the unrepresentative nature of its sampling universe and has - at great expense and much sophistication - solved that problem.

[John Sorrell]

A true Conservative government would immediately cut all taxation and slash public spending, thus freeing people to spend, or save, their money as they wish. Alas the prospects for this are bleak with the present 'wet' leadership.

[Mark Williams]

The fallacy with this proposal is that we live in a parliamentary democracy, and I just don't see MPs agreeing to be bound by decisions reached by polling on the internet. Most MP's are amenable to some persuasion and will listen to good arguments but I don't see them surrendering what they perceive as their primary role, which is to choose how to vote.

[Roger Evans]

Remember the time when a Lib Dem MP organised a radio poll to decide the subject of his ten minute rule bill? The result was a bill allowing householders to shoot burglars, which he refused to present because it offended his Lib Dem views. Serious loss of face.

Or the attempt by ITV to produce an X Factor style candidate before the 2005 election? The various single issue campaigners lost in the public vote to a candidate who wanted to halt immigration. More loss of face and embarrasment for the journos and TV producers.

Better not to do this at all than to do it badly and drop the result.

[Tim Montgomerie]

If I may say so, I'm not sure Roger Evans and Eveleigh Moore-Dutton have read what I actually wrote!

I'm not suggesting that we open up fundamental issues of principle via conservatives.com. I don't want voters to tell us what we should think but guide us on some 'how' and 'when' questions. The tax issue was a case in point. We've decided lower taxation is best for the country. We then invite voters to decide which taxes should be cut.

Another example: We have already decided eleven of the twelve bills in our first Queen's Speech but ask the electorate to decide if repeal of the foxhunting ban, national service bill or move all public sector advertising online bill should be moved from second to first year.

It would be wrong Roger to ask as the LibDem MP did about what Ten Minute Rule Bill we'd champion, It would be wrong Eveleigh to ask voters to vote for higher spending and lower taxes. I didn't propose either such thing - a more limited exercise in democracy was my idea but one which would still give people a greater sense of engagement.

Please reject my idea (if you must) but don't misinterpret it.

Thanks!

[Opinicus]

@Roger Evans

Your post neatly encapsulates everything that has gone wrong with politics over the lat 30 yrs and explains why public engagement with the political process is so vestigial.

We have abandoned any facade of democracy and are ruled by a metropolitan elite whose prejudices and bigotry, although shared by their friends in the media, are diametrically opposed to the wishes of the broader electorate.

No vote in a general election will make any change in this regimen. As John Biffen said in 1990, if we're going to be betrayed, it may as well be charmingly by the Etonian.

Better to do this and enact the result!

[John Leonard]

Whilst I am all in favour of greater interaction between party hierarchies and the voter, binding votes can only be used if they are fair, all inclusive and properly monitored.

Would they provide access to the vote for all?

Many people still don't have personal computers connected to the internet (especially the old).

Who decides what policies/questions are asked and how those questions are asked in an appropriate manner?

How would the votes be verified as fair?

Who would pay for it?

Whether the vote is carried out honestly or not it will exclude some and it will be virtually impossible of stopping accusations of it being fixed in some way.

The reality is that any such system would soon be dragged into disrepute and fall out of use the first time the party leadership got their fingers burnt.

Unfortunately, whilst ideologically desirable it is completely impractical.

[Opinicus]

I really don't see the problem with this, which so many people are scared of.
Tim's idea is that CCHQ put certain questions to the public and let them decide via the party website. What questions those are and what alternatives are offered would be wholly at CCHQ discretion.

Thus there is no opportunity for unwanted answers. If there's an answer you don't want to hear you don't include it as an alternative. Doh!

On the other hand if a Cameron government did discover its spine, it would be a very useful way of robbing the liberal media of a line of attack if it can be shown that an idea came top of a poll. Any alteration in the zeitgeist is only going to come by going over the heads of the media and appealing for support directly from the electorate.

[John Leonard]

Thus there is no opportunity for unwanted answers. If there's an answer you don't want to hear you don't include it as an alternative. Doh!

And that's one of the reasons Labour are 20 points behind in the polls (EU Constitution referendum, Bottled election etc etc, excluding the English from devolution referendums).

Simply because they didn't want to risk hearing what the people thought!

[Dorian Grape]

I think there is actually a convergence of thinking here. The electorate’s ever increasing disengagement with the political process seems to be a case of not being arsed because we are not being asked. From Lisbon to Vehicle Excise Duty we are being told what is good for us rather than being persuaded as to why it is good for us.

Yes, your local MP could burble on about representation and delegation but the reality is neither purpose is being served. We need a step shift in the relationship between the them and the us.

Most here would seem to recognise the problem and what Tim proposes is a form of solution. Ask the electorate. Good old participatory democracy.

It seems to me that advocating empowerment of the electorate is better than loftily stating that most issues are too difficult for the great unwashed to understand.

[David Burbage]

>>>Remember the time when a Lib Dem MP organised a radio poll to decide the subject of his ten minute rule bill? The result was a bill allowing householders to shoot burglars, which he refused to present because it offended his Lib Dem views. Serious loss of face.
<<<

I think you mean Stephen Pound (who is a Labour MP)

The people have spoken

[Ken Stevens]

OK, I've just wasted time on conservatives.com looking for the tax voting bit.

Must look beyond the title; must remember what the lecturer kept exhorting us -- RTFQ
[=Read The Question - can't remember what the 'F' stood for ]
;-(

[Chad Noble]

It would be a lot quicker and cheaper if they just picked up the phone and asked Matthew Elliott what tax the public hates most.

But I can see the potential of a voting on which current group or act is deemed most immoral by Conservatives and needs a little 'nudging' in a speech by Michael Gove... ;-)

[Paul Marks]

Computer voting is open to all sorts of abuse. Just as computer funding is - tracking back where a lot of that Obama money is really comming from would be a useful undertaking.

If you want a vote on cutting taxes that is fine - but it should be a real vote, everone able to go and cast their vote (not just computer people - even though I am using a computer right now).

More important would be a vote on cutting government spending.

But it seems that the only sort of politicians who do not vote themselves and their friends "earmarks" and so on are whitehaired veterans who openly state that they know nothing about computers - and are not interested in polticial control of the internet (however much the internet companies offer to help in this task - in return for government favours).

[Frank Zipper]

Just because Barack Obama does something, it doesn't mean it's new.

The Guardian is wrong to report that Obama is the first candidate to announce his VP by email. John Kerry got there first.

[Graeme Archer]

I'm not commenting on the proposal but I have a question for Tim: what is the qualitative difference between a vote on "which tax would you cut?" and one on a "core principle"? Who decides what a core principle is, by the way? Once the concept of representative democracy is augmented by this interesting (inverted commas) idea, on what basis could the Party/govt
prevent a third party from organising a poll on anything it so desired, and then demanding in law equality of treatment in parliament for its poll vis-a-vis one organized by (in the third party's view) just another voluntary organisation with no particular legislative standing?

Mandatory referenda to control local govt on matters within local govt remit, yes, recall petitions for constituency members, yes. Devolving manifesto commitments to opinion poll, no ta. Would prefer my actual vote to have a purpose thanks. After all, while all those in favour of capital punishment would probably get the result they'd like, they might reflect that the central limit theorem would deliver, in matters economic, policy commitments well to the consensual centre of where most Tories would wish them to be, most of the time.

[Patsy Sergeant]

John Leonard @ 13.06 - 'Many people still don't have personal computers connected to the internet (especially the old).'

That sentence is almost verbatim what I wrote to some ..... in the Post Office earlier this year, when trying to explain why closing about six PO's in our district was/is draconian, and almost exclusively on the old!

But in fact at the same time the U3A (University of the Third Age) is doing splendid work right through the community, encouraging OAP's and particularly older wives (whose husbands hog the computer!!!), to become more at home on-line. Things are changing and very rapidly, even for the silver-tops!

One of the things that needs to be achieved I think - and which is probably much more difficult - is to convince more people that getting involved with political issues is not automatically a yawn yawn exercise, and you didn't need a degree to understand what people are writing. I think that is probably Tim's greatest achievement!!!!!!!! to make political discussion much more accessible to the wider audience.

Ken Stevens @ 14.04 - I have to admit that I did the same as you around the same time today! And I must say that I did find the con...com website quite uninviting, everything is placed down the middle of the screen which doesn't really utilise space very well, and at the moment there is a woman pointing her finger at you, which is the first thing you see, and quite frankly, I felt she was telling me to GO AWAY!!!

[Ken Stevens]

Patsy Sergeant
"a woman pointing her finger at you, which is the first thing you see, and quite frankly, I felt she was telling me to GO AWAY!!!"

It was apparently quite a successful technique when Lord Kitchener gestured thus.
:-)

"Tim's greatest achievement.. to make political discussion much more accessible to the wider audience."
Agreed. I also learn a lot from reading posts on subjects that I don't chuck my pennyworth into.