Voter choice the loser in Richmond by-election say Electoral Reform Society

Commenting on the Richmond by-election, Katie Ghose, Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society, said:

In all the excitement of the Richmond by-election, one thing has gone missing – and that’s voter choice.

Because of our broken electoral system, people in Richmond had a seriously limited slate of candidates to choose from. Many felt forced to vote for candidates who were not their first choice, understandably putting tactics above the expression of their democratic will. It should be obvious that in the 21^st century, no one should feel forced to choose between head and heart.

The Greens, Conservatives and UKIP all opted to stand aside – a decision that no party should have to make, and a denial of democracy. The fact that this happened on both the left and the right shows that the sorry state of our electoral system hurts everyone across the political spectrum.

Tactical voting is a scourge on our democracy. This is what happens when a two-party voting system collides with the reality of modern politics. It leaves both voters and parties worse off.

With a proportional system for national elections, and Alternative Vote for by-elections, the problem is massively reduced. You don’t have to ‘hold your nose’ when you vote – you give your first preference to the party you actually support, and if they don’t have enough support to win, your vote is moved to your second choice. It’s not hard. No more accusations of parties being ‘spoilers’ and handing the seat to x, y or z.

It’s time we put paid to the awkward and unnecessary debates about ‘spoiler’ candidates. The way to do that is to have a voting system where it’s always possible for voters to vote for their preferred party. That, surely, is not such a radical idea.

GLA Labour backs Green call for public debate on Proportional Representation

Brent Council: Never mind the cuts we're spending more on PR

Unconfirmed rumours reach me that Cheryl Curling, head of communications has been summarily escorted from Brent Civic Centre. Two days ago PR Weekly LINK  carried the story that she had been made redundant as part of the council's restructuring that will increase staff from 9 to 11 and with a new head on a higher pay grade than Curling. PR Weekly noted that Cheryl had not responded to a request for a comment at the time of going to press.

PR Weekly stated:

Curling’s role as ‎head of comms and marketing is set to be replaced by the wider ranging and higher salaried role of head of media and external relations, with the post currently being advertised.

Brent Council’s interim senior comms adviser Richard Stokoe, hired last year as part of the review, said the restructure would see a shift in focus towards making the council’s 2,500 staff its spokespeople.

"The most trusted form of comms is verbal, and the most trusted form of verbal comms is from friends and relatives, so this is about getting staff out there. If you have each member of staff talking to five people about the council and what it's doing, you can start to bring about big behaviour change."

Alongside a change in the top role, the comms officer roles will be changed to media officers, while new corporate comms officers will oversee longer-term strategy and the training of staff as spokespeople.

Not very good public relations really...

Get the 'racist van' off the road for good this weekend

The campaign against the 'racist' vans is proceeding on several fronts as the Home Office pilot project comes to an end. The PCS has taken up the issue with the senior civil servant at the Home Office. A 'letter of intent' on legal action, probably under the Equalities Act,  has been sent by a refugee group in East London LINK and similar action is being contemplated by activists in Brent. It appears that the Home Office may not have sought planning permission for the van hoardings which raises questions of   their legality.

The Twitter campaign against the Home Office and the Promovans group has been supported widely and the trolling of the Home Office 'help line' has produced some hilarious interchanges which expose the 'Go Home' message to ridicule.

David Cameron as the head of the country's first PR government (public relations not proportional representation) as a former PR man may count the Home Office campaign as a success in getting the Coalition's 'tough stance' on immigration into the headlines but it has also served to alienate his Lib Dem Coalition partners.

Back in 1964 as a raw 16 year old I went for a job in the PR department of an advertising agency. I naively told the interviewer 'I like people'.  He instantly replied, 'That is no good. To be a success in PR you must utterly despise people'. I didn't get the job - some years later David Cameron did!

Meanwhile Green Party leader Natalie Bennett has added her voice to the debate in the Guardian:

I don't often agree with Nigel Farage, but he is right that the billboards being driven around some areas with high immigrant populations are "nasty" and "unpleasant" (Anger at 'go home' message to illegal immigrants, 26 July). The government's choice to adopt a slogan similar to that used by racists in the 70s is deeply disturbing, particularly at a time when the Muslim Council of Britain has expressed fears about a "dramatic escalation" of attacks against British Muslims. However, it is predominantly the rhetoric of Ukip that has caused immigrants to be so causally demonised by the government and other political parties. Mr Farage has spoken of "opening up our borders" to 28 million Romanians and Bulgarians, as though the entire populations of those nations were about to uproot themselves and move to the UK.

The government is clearly guilty of scapegoating immigrants for Britain's problems with housing shortages, low wages and unemployment. The fault clearly lies with its own policies, and those of the former Labour government.