A rebel with a cause at Monday's Full Council debate on Proportional Representation

 

 The Liberal Democrats brought a motion to Full Council this week making the case for Proportional Representation.

Proportional Representation is Labour Party policy, but a policy that the Labour Party  leader Keir Starmer decided to ignore. A policy aimed at improving democracy, democratically decided at Labour Conference,  undemocratically dismissed!

Cllr Tom Miller made a speech saying the for the first time he was defying the Labour whip and would vote for the motion. As I understand it he was joined by Cllr Janice Long. Cllr Robert Johnson and Cllr Liz Dixon abstained.  I would point out that the public watching on the livestream cannot see the voting and numbers are not announced by the Mayor - so I am open to correction.

This is the motion:

This Council believes:

 

The next General Election is an opportunity to take our country on a different course

after years of chaotic Tory rule. This is especially true in the aftermath of the Brexit

referendum, which saw the UK crash out of the European Union, with a bad deal, that

has left us diminished, poorer and less important on the world stage. The next General

Election will be fought under the antiquated First Past the Post voting system.

First Past the Post (FPTP) originated when land-owning aristocrats dominated

parliament and voting was restricted to property-owning men. It is not fit for a ‘modern

democracy’.

 

In Europe, only the UK and authoritarian Belarus still use archaic single-round FPTP

for general elections. This produces governments that have typically not had strong

support across the country.

 

Internationally, Proportional Representation (PR) is used to elect the Parliaments of

more than 80 countries. It is a system that works and has fostered a more consensual,

pragmatic way of conducting politics and policy making.

 

PR ensures that all votes count, have equal value, and that seats won match votes

cast. Under PR, MPs and Parliaments better reflect the age, gender and protected

characteristics of both local communities and of the nation. Whilst the UK has taken

leaps forwards in terms of electing a more diverse Parliament, we are still behind many

other countries.

 

MPs better reflecting the communities they represent in turn leads to improved

decision making, wider participation and increased levels of ownership of decisions

taken. PR would also end minority rule. In 2019, 43.6% of the vote produced a

government with 56.2% of the seats and 100% of the power. Fair, proportional votes

also prevent ‘wrong winner’ elections such as occurred in 1951 and February 1974.

 

PR is now the national policy of the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, Green Party,

SNP, Plaid Cymru and Women’s Equality Party along with a host of Trade Unions and

pro-democracy organisations.

 

There is a growing consensus that the UK’s voting system must change.

 

PR is already used to elect the parliaments and assemblies of Scotland, Wales and

Northern Ireland. Its use should now be extended to include Westminster and

considered at a local level too.

 

Our democracy is in a fragile state, with confidence in politics at a record low.

Changing the voting system to guarantee that every vote counts equally can help to

inspire renewed confidence in our political system, increase participation and ensure

that the electorate are able to elect the type of government that the majority of the

British people want to see.

 

This Council therefore resolves to:

1) Join 29 other local authorities across the country, of different political

persuasions, in supporting calls for a change to the UK’s voting system to

Proportional Representation.

 

2) Request that the Leader of the Council write to H.M. Government calling for a

change in our outdated electoral laws and to enable Proportional Representation

to be used for UK general elections and local Council elections.

 

3) Request that the Leader of the Council write to H.M Leader of the Opposition to

encourage that the Labour Party include changing the electoral system in their

next election manifesto.

 

Cllr Anton Georgiou

Alperton Ward

 

Well done Cllr Miller and Cllr Long. Rather sad that some of the young Turks in the Labour Group went along with opposition. 

Supporting the motion Brent Green Party said:

The Green Party of England and Wales and Brent Green Party support Proportional Representation as a fairer, more inclusive electoral system for the United Kingdom. Currently UK national and local governments are often elected by a minority of voters. This is grossly unjust, each vote must matter in all elections, and the results must reflect what the people choose.

Open letter to the “Alliance for Radical Democratic Change” (AFRDC) from GET PR DONE!

 

Open letter to the “Alliance for Radical Democratic Change” (AFRDC)

By GET PR DONE!

Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham/Welsh First Minister Mark Drakeford/Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown

 

We appreciate that your new Alliance is looking at the issue of democratic change which is vital in making our society more equitable. But we are sure that tens of thousands of electoral reformers will be very disappointed — indeed perplexed — by your decision to omit any reference to proportional representation (PR) from the 1 June mission statement of a group that is calling for “radical democratic change.”

Not wanting to change the voting system comes across as illogical if you are serious about making other reforms. And, to be clear, PR is not especially “radical.” More than 90 countries around the world already use PR and this far fairer voting system elects the legislatures in both Wales and Scotland. Westminster is the laggard.

Moreover, we are doubly disappointed that two leading Labour politicians strongly in favour of PR — namely, Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham and Wales First Minister Mark Drakeford — have obviously lost out in making PR a part of your group’s mission statement. Other Scottish politicians from the Greens and the Liberal Democrats, two parties which also support PR as a matter of policy, have obviously lost out as well.

SUPPORT FOR A CHANGE TO PR GROWING RAPIDLY 

Your statement is being issued at a time when the overwhelming majority of Labour Party members support PR and three of its largest unions — UNITE, UNISON and USDAW —- all support PR. So do the majority of UK voters. Only the Conservative Party still supports the archaic first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system. 

Set up in the 1880s, FPTP is notoriously undemocratic. It has created hundreds of safe seats and means that millions of votes are wasted. Minorities often rule. Under PR, by comparison, seats won match votes cast. PR is far more equitable and nonpartisan.  

AFRDC, which is headed by former PM Gordon Brown, was set up in Edinburgh on 1 June.  Here is a press release of its launch:   
https://ourscottishfuture.org/leaders-to-form-new-alliance-to-change-uk/

We in GET PR DONE! ask that the AFRDC consider revising its mission statement and include PR as a basic democratic principle for a democratic country. Retaining FPTP is simply indefensible for democrats.   

Signed,

The steering group of GET PR DONE!

Established in January 2020, GET PR DONE! is a cross party/ no party campaign group that aims to do what it is says on the tin.  https://getprdone.org.uk/                    getprdone@gmail.com 

Why Labour should support electoral reform and how the environment could benefit

Make Votes Matter fringe at the Labour Party Conference this week

The Green Party came up against a solid brick wall at the General Election when it tried to get agreement with the Labour Party and Liberal Democrats for a 'Progressive' (Electoral) Alliance which involved a commitment to campaign for electoral reform in exchange for the other parties standing down in favour of the party best placed to defeat the Tory candidate. In the event neither the Lib Dems nor Labour made the commitment although Greens did stand down in a number of seats.

Some Labour MPs made individual commitments on PR and a number of them spoke at the Make Votes Matter/Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform fringe meeting at the Labour Party Conference. Locally Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) has supported proportional representation.

Coinciding with Conference the two organisations published a well researched paper making the case for the Labour Party to adopt electoral reform as policy. The paper has the non-snappy title The Many Not the Few Proportional Representation and Labour in the 21st Century. On line copy here LINK.

This is an extract from the paper addressing the issue of environmental policy:

-->

The evidence

Studies have found that countries using proportional systems
 set stricter environmental policies and were faster to ratify the Kyoto protocol. On environmental performance, Lijphart and Orellana found
that countries with PR scored 
six points higher on the Yale Environmental Performance Index, which measures ten policy areas, including environmental health, air quality, resource management, biodiversity and habitat, forestry, fisheries, agriculture and climate change. 

Using data from the International Energy Agency, Orellana found that between 1990 and 2007, when carbon emissions were rising everywhere, the statistically predicted increase was significantly lower in countries with fully proportional systems, at 9.5 per cent, compared to 45.5 per cent in countries using winner-take-all systems. Orellana found use of renewable energy to be 117 percent higher in countries with fully proportional systems.

Explanation

The UK has historically lagged behind its European peers when it comes to action on climate change and uptake of renewable energy. Depressingly, this is despite having by far the best off shore wind and marine energy potential in Europe. Successive governments have at best taken relatively limited action to move away from fossil fuels and reduce emissions, or at worst have actively resisted such progress (with the current government determined to begin shale gas production despite strong opposition from both local communities and the general public). 

Using data from the International Energy Agency, in his 1990 book, Electing for Democracy, Richard Kuper offers an explanation for this which remains true to this 
day. “Were the Greens”, he writes, “in a position to obtain representation in proportion to their vote, it is inconceivable that Labour would not already have in place a coherent and much strengthened range of environmental policies in order to head o the challenge.” 

Because a vote for the Green Party remains a wasted vote in almost every constituency, we in the Labour Party have little electoral incentive to worry about winning those voters back by competing with the Greens with our environmental credentials. On the contrary, since the swing voters in marginal seats may not be keen on the idea of a wind turbine at the bottom of their garden, an electoral agent may well advise us not to make too much of a fuss about climate change. 

Twitter links @MakeVotesMatter  @Labour4PR

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.

Some of the issues lurking beneath the surface of the Green Party leadership election

Line up at a hustings for leader and deputy. Amelia Womack was on holiday.

Written in individual capacity 

As the great Labour leadership battle storms on amidst thunderous roars, flashes of lightning and torrents of abuse, in a comparatively calm but neglected corner of the political firmament another leadership contest is taking place - for the leadership, deputy leadership and Executive of the Green Party of England and Wales.

News Thump: 'Green Party picks worst possible moment to hold leadership election' LINK takes a well-aimed satirical swipe at the Greens' failure to get even minimal coverage of their election but it is worth looking at some of the issues that are lurking just below the surface.

Some are not specific to this election but reflect longer term issues. An obvious one, now reflected in the Labour leadership contest, is the relationship between the Greens as part of a wider campaigning environmental and social justice movement and the Greens as an electoralist organisation.  The reduction of the party's campaigning (non election) budget to zero means that there will be few, if any, campaign materials available at the Autumn conference.  The recent emphasis on a 'progressive alliance' with other political parties, strongly supported by Caroline Lucas, raises all sorts of issues about electoral pacts, red (green?) lines, and what is meant by the slippery term 'progressive'. Much will depend on the outcome of the Labour leadership election where Labour support for proportional representation will be deal-breaker.

As Caroline Lucas is standing for the leadership on a joint ticket with Jonathan Bartley the progressive alliance has featured in many of the hustings. Concerns have been expressed that this concept has not been fully debated by the membership and rather than emerging from the party's very comprehensive policy making process has come from 'on high'.  Deputy leader candidate Shahrar Ali has called for full internal party consultation on the issue.  It is complicated by the fact that the Green Party is not a top-down organisation with centralised direction but one where local parties have autonomy. Final decisions on whether to contest seats or stand down in favour of an agreed 'progressive alliance' candidates rests with them.

In terms of joint campaigning with other political parties, independent socialists and environmentalists, trade unionists  and community groups this already happens on many issues including fracking, austerity, local government cuts, housing, union disputes, academisation, public transport, library closure and much else.  When we take part in such actions the lack of Green Party campaign material is a weakness.

There are those in the Green Party who view the progressive alliance with scepticism and others who go further in arguing that Greens should stand on their own policies which are inimical to Labour's commitment to economic growth.

The jibe that Ukip is more diverse than the Green Party has enough truth in it to require the Green Party undertake some serious self-examination.  The hustings photograph above illustrates, with the exception of Shahrar Ali (standing) the all-white nature of candidates for the leadership and deputy leadership of the party.  There is also a gender imbalance in the leadership contest with Caroline Lucas the only female although three of the seven deputy candidates are women.

Class is an area when the Green Party has come under attacks as an essentially middle class institution and although the membership is changing with the recruitment of ex-Labour activists and a thriving Green Party Trade Union Group, the public face of the Green Party is still middle class, white and largely London-based.

There are candidates in this election with working class roots or a record of activism in working class communities including Martie Warin from the ex-pit village of Easington in County Durham, and Cllr David Williams  now in Oxfordshire but originally from Salford.  Among the deputy contenders Andrew Cooper has represented the Greens on Kirklees Council since 1999.

The candidiates' views on working with trade unions can be read HERE

Turning to issues specific to this election the one to emerge early on was the joint candidature of Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley LINK. In giving up the leadership previous Lucas had said she wanted to open up the way for more voices to represent the party. Critics immediately suggested that standing for the leadership in 2016 as well as being the sole MP would effectively reduce the number of voices.  Party rules state that if co-leaders are elected then there will be only one deputy (Shahrar Ali and Amelia Womack were previously male and female deputies).  A further criticism was that by announcing their co-leadership bid early on Lucas-Bartley effectively discouraged other candidates. Given Lucas' prominence and well-deserved reputation, others were unlikely to come forward as they would expect Lucas to win.

The issue of workload is also being discussed by activists. Previously Natalie Bennett, Amelia Womack and Shahrar Ali shared the official leadership positions supplemented by Caroline Lucas and the Green MEPs.  If Lucas is elected co-leader the official leadership is reduced by one. In addition she will have to combine leadership with the role of MP. As the leader spends a lot of the time touring the country, speaking to local parties and attending events this aspect of the role may suffer although the counter-argument is that Bartley will do the bulk of this work.

Although there is a strong case against the media dictating our leadership structures it is worth considering how the media, especially TV and Radio, will cope with co-leaders. It was a feature of the General Election that interviewers did not really understand that in the Green Party the leader is a spokesperson for policies decided by the membership.  They often expected Bennett to be an expert on every aspect of policy or to make up policy and initiatives on the spot. Combine that with a preference for one recognisable face and voice then we can expect Lucas to dominate the media with a blurring between her leadership and MP roles. Policy and strategy expectations will be deepened by her parliamentary role so on issues such as the progressive alliance she will be pushed to comment beyond existing policy.

Members' deciding policy is a jealously guarded principle in the Green Party and members are likely to oppose any erosion of that role.  Given the growth in party membership there are issues around managing larger conferences (at present any member can attend) and the possibility of switching to a delegate conference. Although the Green Party trumpets its democratic structures the current right of anyone to attend is counter-balanced by the issue of affordability. Despite differing charges for conference admission according to capacity to pay, fares and accommodation are expensive, so those economically disadvantaged are less able to afford to attend.

The concerns outlined above along with members who want to see Ali and Womack continue as deputy leaders has led to some members advocating a vote for RON in the leadership elections. RON stands for Re-open Nominations.  They argue that a  winning vote for RON would both enable a wider and more diverse field to come forward for the leadership and potentially allow Ali and Womack to continue as deputies.

Others argue that RON is extremely unlikely to win, if it did it would be an embarrassment to the party, and despite misgivings Lucas-Bartley is the only real show in town.


Declaration of interest: I have backed Shahrar Ali standing as deputy leader on the grounds of his effective communication skills  and his commitment to internal party democracy. We do not of course agree on everything!

GLA Labour backs Green call for public debate on Proportional Representation

Battle for a fair and representative voting systems continues - Lucas

The recent election results released were full of promises for the Green Party, but provided a disheartening result for the 'Yes to AV' campaign. Green Party leader Caroline Lucas, responding to the "No" vote in the AV referendum said:

This is a disappointing result for all of those who have campaigned for positive change in our democracy. The political context meant it was always going to be an uphill struggle; with the Tories united in opposition, a divided Labour party, and unpopular Liberal Democrats.

In the end, the nature of the choice over AV was not clear enough, thanks in no small part to the alarmist rhetoric and misinformation which characterised the ‘No’ campaign. Many have been shocked at the degree to which ‘No’ campaigners patronised and misled the British public. Rarely did we hear positive arguments in favour of FPTP – just desperate arguments begging us to cling to the status quo.

The result should not be seen by the Government as a signal that voters will not support truly progressive change. The battle for a genuinely fair and representative voting system continues – and the Greens will push for proportional representation at every opportunity.