By Pam Giddy / @Power2010
Much has been made of Gordon Brown’s decision to introduce paving legislation for a referendum on electoral reform to the Alternative Vote. If this is not to smack of electioneering and smoky backrooms, let alone play a real force in the struggle for democratic renewal, then Labour’s initiative must be developed into a truly popular debate and engagement.
At Power2010, we have already begun the project of a truly diverse and mass discussion on the shape of British democracy, starting by opening the agenda to the public which saw us receive 4,500 ideas for democratic renewal in just over two months.
They say in a referendum it’s all in how you phrase the question. Therein lies the rub. Gordon Brown’s agenda was not set openly through public consultation. How much more compelling would it have been to ask the public which method they favour to select their representatives in a process of meaningful debate and deliberation?
During Power2010's Deliberative Poll, 130 citizens from across the UK of all political backgrounds and walks of life, discussed the changes they wanted to see to our democracy over the course of a weekend.
On Saturday, 43% of people backed the Alternative Vote; on the Sunday – after discussing it – only 36.6% did. Support for a more proportional system, meanwhile, rose from 48% to 53% and is now leading the list of reforms in the public vote.
Though the agenda hasn’t been set by the public there is still time to create a real popular discussion. Forward thinking groups concerned with the creation of a more just, equal and sustainable Britain have increasingly pointed to electoral reform as the key to forging that ever elusive "progressive consensus" that Jon Cruddas explains has held a majority in the country (if not in Parliament) since 1945.
The Labour Party must not be afraid of engaging in mass and diverse discussion on the shape of democracy. A good start would be to follow the lead of Progress, Compass and LabourList by engaging seriously with Power2010 – debating with, and then voting alongside, members of the Muslim Council of Britain, the Tory Reform Group, the British Youth Council, the Salvation Army, the Countryside Alliance, NO2ID and Unlock Democracy among many others. Likewise, the recent TUC pamphlet "Getting it in Proportion" is a welcome addition to the debate, setting out why a more pluralistic politics would be socially valuable.
A written constitution – which the Prime Minister hopes to see by the 800th Anniversary of Magna Carta in 2015 – is currently in the top five most popular reforms and, who knows, with support from LabourList readers, it along with Recall and Lords Reform could also triumph in public debate and add to the growing momentum behind Brown’s proposals.
Democracy begins and ends with the people, a broad public debate must be cultivated if Brown’s reforms are to be at all legitimate. And, hey, we might find that such an approach actually makes real change feasible – it’s the only way any future referendum on AV will be won.
Vote for your idea of democratic renewal here.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Nobody in Brown's cAbinet have the backbone to challenge him on policy matters. Maybe they don't want to be targets of his 'Raging Bull' temper tantrums, which, if correct, does show that Gordon Brown is more than 'pscyhologically flawed' (alleged of course).
Democracy's very foundation lies in the Magna Carta indeed but I struggle to see where it listed AV as the 'fairest' voting system.
FPTP works because it is very simple, one man, one vote. The candidate with the most votes win.
Don't forget it is not the electoral system that is broken, it is the pay and expenses system.
It is not about majority voting, it is simply about the people choosing who they want to represent them. Anything that runs the possibility of not electing the person with the most votes as AV can, it simply not democratic.
This 'desire' to change the voting system now has nothing to do with change.
1. It will trap the Tories on the 'Vote for Change' ticket.
2. It will be more likely return a Labour government into office.
3. It will be more likely keep the Conservative from office.
As for the people. They will apply Occam's razor as the political anoraks slug it out.
Anyone fiddling with the electoral system when facing a heavy defeat is not worthy of using the word 'democracy'.
The people will punish accordingly.
I for one will be very proactive here after the General. Incredibly important and I suspect the people in Barking and Dagenham will be VERY interested in this.
Good work.
Also, politicians have a life outside of government, if only if it is to do with working with other politicians in their party and opposition politicians in other parties. How would you know that 'sofa' government wasn't happening in the party discussions of the governing party - the discussions that happen in any party that's not in government. So even if a civil servant note taker had followed Blair everywhere in government there would have been ways round it unless the notetaker followed him everywhere and Blair had no access to modern communication devices like iPhones.
I think the point is more that in setting the rules by which politics is to be conducted the people should have the first and last say. I don't think Pam's piece is arguing in favour of a participatory democracy.
Where is Captain James T. Kirk, when you need him!