STV petition (urgent)

There is a new, pro-STV, petition on the No. 10 website:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to make the proposed LINks (Local Involvement Networks) fully democratic by PR elections.

Although the petition does not specifically mention STV, the accompanying explanation states the system used for NHS Foundation Trusts (which is STV) should be used for the Networks. Please visit http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/LINkselections/ and sign the petition but hurry because it closes on 30 November. If you would like more details, please visit http://www.stvaction.org.uk/?q=node/229.

Lib Dem leadership

I asked Chris Huhne and Nick Clegg on 31 October:

"Would you please confirm your commitment to the Single Transferable Vote in multi-member constituencies for public elections in the UK and, as Party Leader, would you press for the use of STV, especially if you became Prime Minister or were negotiating with any other party in the event of no overall majority in the Commons?"

Chris Huhne replied on 2 November:

"Dear Anthony,

Thank you for your email. I am glad to say I can meet your request.

The current British electoral system is unfair and unrepresentative. A government elected on only 35% of the vote can introduce 3,000 new criminal offences in ten years and bring the country into a disastrous, unpopular war. A more proportional voting system is central to my commitment for a Liberal Revolution to re-inspire and re-engage the British people with the political system.

Single Transferable Votes are my preferred system for doing this, because it makes the result of the election more representative of vote while still allowing the electorate to choose their own preferred candidate. Such electoral reform would be a priority of any Liberal Democrat Government I lead, and a condition of any coalition we might form with another party.

Details of this are set out in my manifesto available at
www.chris2win.org.uk. You might also be interested to read this speech,
http://chrishuhne.org.uk/speeches/000059/reconnecting_britain.html, which I gave to the Electoral Reform Society over the summer.

Best wishes,

Chris"

Chris Huhne also wrote very similarly to my electoral reform colleague, A.

Although I have not received a response from Nick Clegg, he told A:

"Thank you for taking the time to send me your thoughts on STV. I agree with what you say on this important subject. STV offers numerous improvements to our current electoral system and could play an important role in strengthening our democracy. Finally I can confirm I entirely agree with the party's policy on STV, and if elected as leader will actively campaign to promote it."

On the other hand, according to the Sunday Times of 21 October, "he urged the party to pipe down about electoral reform, because it gives the impression that “we are more concerned about getting our bums on seats than engaging with issues the public cares about”. "

Another electoral reform colleague, K, asked both candidates, without mentioning electoral reform:

"What would be your three most important Lib Dem policies (in order of importance) that you would insist on being included in negotiations with either of the other two main parties?"

Chris Huhne replied:

"I would only consider partnership politics in a system which is fit for it. This means that electoral reform, and specifically proportional representation, would be a priority of any Liberal Democrat Government I lead, and an unbreakable condition of any coalition we might form with another party.

Once this has been secured I would negotiate with any potential coalition partner to secure as much of our manifesto and policy priorities as possible."

One of Nick Clegg's staff replied on his behalf:

"Nick has asked [sic] your question here:
http://www.epolitix.com/EN/Interviews/200711/9aea9fb4-d8fc-4094-a68d-52af5526bc3e.htm"

The website reference revealed:

" Question: What would your red lines be for joining a coalition government?

Nick Clegg: I think it would be extremely ill-advised to single out a red line here or there - they just become hostages to fortune. You just get trapped by thickness of one redline over another and I am simply not interested in that.

What I am interested in is in seeing a more liberal Britain and seeing a bigger Liberal Democrat party pursuing that end.

Frankly, to start playing Westminster footsie with one party or another now is something the electorate would not like and I'm not going to do it.

The electorate quite rightly wants to first have their say and then we can see where the parties lie."

More recently he wrote in yesterday's Independent, "A commitment to proportional representation....is absolutely pivotal to any serious attempt to change our country".

There will be two more official hustings meetings:
24 Nov, 11am Manchester Town Hall, Albert Square, Manchester
Map

27 Nov, 7pm Friends Meeting House, Euston Road, London, NW1 2BJ
Map

Constitutional review

As mention in STV News 07/11, I asked the Ministry of Justice on 25 September how the public could contribute to the promised national debate on constitutional review. The Ministry replied on 19 October:

"The Ministry of Justice is in the process of building a website which will allow members of the public to have their say on the various consultations emerging from the Governance of Britain Green Paper. The website will launch towards the end of November, to coincide with a programme of regional events where Ministers will formally launch the process of consultation."

The writer then directed me to a number of websites concerning various aspects of constitutional reform but not the voting system.

Although the reply does not mention electoral reform, I am sure all readers will recognize its relevance to many issues, the need for electoral reform so we have a representative parliament with moral authority to make policy decisions and the irrelevance of tinkering with the constitution without electoral reform. I hope you will tell the Government of the need for electoral reform and its relevance to so many other issues, even if the Government does not directly ask for comments on voting systems.