The future of electoral reform in the UK

6th May 2011 19:02 | by Loz Kaye

On behalf of the Pirate Party, I would like to thank the voters that turned out to cast their ballots in the national referendum on whether to change the electoral system to the Alternative Vote. The outcome is not what The UK Pirate Party or I had hoped for, even if it is what we had come to expect over recent weeks.

 

Our failure, both as a party and as individual campaigners, was to not properly inform voters of the choice in front of them, or indeed why it mattered at all. The same criticism applies equally to the No campaign.  On 5th May I was still explaining to people on the doorstep that they were going to be asked to vote in a referendum in addition to casting their council ballots. It is a sad day when, after months of campaigning on an issue as vital as electoral reform, voters were still unprepared to answer a simple yes/no question at the ballot box.  

 

The most telling part of the result today is that the turnout clearly shows the option presented to the electorate was simply not compelling. The Alternative Vote was not, and is not the preferred alternative to FPTP for most voters.  We believe that it isn't the best option for the country (as shown by the Jenkins commission). However we felt that it might have been a catalyst for further change; it is now time to look for a more direct and honest approach and properly present the case for change to the British people.

 

In the absence of an endorsement by the electorate, I feel that it is my duty and the responsibility of the Pirate Party to push in earnest for a more realistic, popular and beneficial alternative. I hope we can do this alongside many other groups and parties. This referendum was, after all a rejection of AV and not a rejection of the need for reform.

 

Our reception as a party by the Yes campaign was less than enthusiastic. Indeed, our offers of support were rejected on spurious grounds despite my repeated attempts to talk to people high-up in the Yes campaign. It was this kind of timidity that, in my opinion, contributed in some small part to the loss of the referendum. Nevertheless, I would like to present a reconciliatory offer; let's press forward with a campaign to first inform the electorate about, and then fight for a change to a specific proportional system of representation in the UK.  Something that is well overdue and the very least we owe to the people of Britain.   

 

What I am suggesting is that we work to offer a real, fair, honest and balanced change to the electoral system- not because it benefits one group or another, not because it papers over other issues in British politics, but because it allows people to express their choices and have their voices heard.

 

We hope that others will join with us in this endeavour, and we will be contacting like-minded groups. It will be hard work, but worthwhile change normally is.

 

Loz Kaye

Leader

UK Pirate Party

.


9 comments


May 07 2011 01:05 by glambert
Very important that we remember that such a low turnout does not represent the views of the entire nation. In Bury we managed to persuade non-voters to vote for us - something other parties admit they either failed to do or didn't bother trying to do.

If we persuade the non-voting people to vote in favour of electoral reform so that they can make their voice heard, we will soon be using a method of PR.

This referendum returned a resounding NO to a method that nobody really wanted and I'm still baffled as to why it was presented as the preferred alternative to the electorate.

We want PR and we aren't alone in this. We need to unite together with other parties that support PR on this issue only and we need to continue the fight for it before we lose out completely for another generation.

We have waited nearly 30 years since John Cleese campaigned with the SDP-Lib Dem Alliance to implement PR, let's not wait another 30 years!
May 09 2011 03:05 by borgs8472
I hope the failure of the yes to AV PPUK will lead to policies being decided by more expert groups, and fewer full member votes.

The pro AV camp were criticised, rightly in my opinion for being made up an odd group of disparate fringe parties + the lib dems and some of the major parties, this unfortunately includes PPUK.

Whilst attaching our flag to the yes to AV group was valuable political experience for those involved on the ground, I'm concerned we jumped on the wrong bandwagon, which highlights how we must stick to areas we have mature knowledge on and established views or discussion.
May 09 2011 11:05 by Gavman
borgs8472 wrote: I hope the failure of the yes to AV PPUK will lead to policies being decided by more expert groups, and fewer full member votes.

The pro AV camp were criticised, rightly in my opinion for being made up an odd group of disparate fringe parties + the lib dems and some of the major parties, this unfortunately includes PPUK.

Whilst attaching our flag to the yes to AV group was valuable political experience for those involved on the ground, I'm concerned we jumped on the wrong bandwagon, which highlights how we must stick to areas we have mature knowledge on and established views or discussion.


I half agree and half disagree with you here Borgs. At the end of the day, our members voted for the Party to support Yes to AV and as such it is quite simple, the party was right to campaign for 'yes to AV' however I agree with you that perhaps we got carried away and jumped on the bandwagon without thinking things through.
May 10 2011 12:05 by M2Ys4U
I don't think things are that simple. The Yes campaign was badly run as a whole tbh, and most people recognise that as such. We could have been better utilised but my impression is that Yes thought we - and some other smaller parties - were a liability instead of harnessing out support.

At the end of the day, though, it was clear out membership supported a Yes vote, and there was only really one big yes campaign group - what else where we to do?

I fully support us putting issues like these - where there is a cause that is related to our core policies (electoral reform) but not specifically mentioned in them (AV) - to a membership vote. The mandate is with the membership, not the NEC.
May 10 2011 01:05 by borgs8472
I'm not suggesting the mandate be with the NEC, I say 'expert groups'.
May 11 2011 07:05 by lhsi
Would the 'expert groups' enforce their decisions on every member, or just put forward a recommendation? In this case, for example, if the expert group decided we should follow 'no to AV', but the members wanted to support 'yes to AV', what would the decision be? (I would say in the case of a disagreement that neither should be supported instead of choosing one, but that would be harder to do in something directly related to a core policy. Is electoral reform a core policy?).

I think it was a good thing that the party was involved in some campaigning for this, if anything just for more experience and insights into running/being part of the campaign.
May 11 2011 08:05 by plooterman
glambert wrote: I'm still baffled as to why it was presented as the preferred alternative to the electorate.


Because it would fail - the Lib Dems were stitched up
May 11 2011 08:05 by cabalamat
borgs8472 wrote: I hope the failure of the yes to AV PPUK will lead to policies being decided by more expert groups, and fewer full member votes.


I disagree. I'm in favour of internal party democracy.
May 12 2011 01:05 by korvalis
borgs8472 wrote: I hope the failure of the yes to AV PPUK will lead to policies being decided by more expert groups, and fewer full member votes.

That's probably the best way of disenfranchising the membership, if the majority of members views are being ignored in the favour of those of the select few, they will get up and leave.

I'm all for 'expert groups' providing detailed information / sources (on both sides of an argument) for the membership to vote on.
Post a comment