Several experienced politicians have said there are far too many MPs relative to the amount of work in parliament now that the EU invents 80% of our legislation which can only go through on the nod. The talk is of a reduction of 10% . This is nothing compared with the levels of reductions of staff in the private sector when there is not enough work.

Excellent points & something which hasn’t been raised by people who seem more concerned with giving middle-class voters more power rather than enfranchising working-class voters.

I’ll expand on your point about some people not understanding how to vote by saying that with previous generations, illiteracy was something that put many people off voting. Now literacy is generally improved and it doesn’t seem to be that as much as the actual process – many people are concerned about going to the polling station and being shown up if they don’t know what to do and have to ask for help. They might see it as analagous to going to a job centre and have had previous experience that put them off.

With improvements in literacy I see all-postal voting as a way of enfranchising that group of people. Yes, we all know that the evidence suggests it raises turnout at first then turnout goes down nearer to previous levels. But if it is a group of people of haven’t voted before who vote the first time when turnout goes up, it will give them the confidence to vote again when they believe there is a lot at stake.

Perhaps you’d like me to go on a grand tour temping around Europe, voting in every local and national election I can find?

If you’re that committed to democracy, go for it. Don’t think there’ll be many of you, though.

Our political system will be much healthier when the same proportion of people from Liverpool and Surrey go and vote

One of the (unintended) virtues of FPTP is that it doesn’t matter if the (presumably Labour) MP from Liverpool is elected by half as many people as vote for the (presumably Tory) MP from Surrey – the end result is still one MP each. Of course, the down-side of this is that there’s no real incentive to work on getting more Liverpudlians to vote under FPTP (with the exception of Liverpool Wavertree which is slowly becoming a competitive seat).

It’s not entirely true to say that migrant workers can’t vote. Non-EU-citizen migrant workers can’t vote, which I’d guess is much less than the total number of migrant workers. EU citizens can vote in UK elections, as can any non-EU migrant who has taken on British citizenship. What would we require from a migrant in order to give them voting rights? I’d be slightly worried about the possibility of migrants being coerced/fraudulently persuaded into voting a certain way. If they’re not yet aware of the political culture, they might be at risk of being misled (though given how easily British citizens are misled, perhaps this something of an idealistic worry).

PR aint a miracle cure but turnout increases more amongst urban, poor and young voters. Check out what happened in New Zealand. As for the rest, maybe non-voters should be represented by people drawn randomly from the elevtorate by lottery. After all they are not saying they not interestd, just not interested in any on the ballot paper. So 40% not voting would mean 40% drawn by lot. What better incentive for politicians to get the vote out.

One of the features of the Thatcher/Major government was to allow Tory voters, and rich people to slowly opt out of Democracy. A classic example was Gummers law which allowed rich people to by pass the planning laws and just build big house wherever they wanted. Classic Tory policy. Laws are for the little people.

Another trick they pulled was the opt out schools. This was the equivalent of creating little mini northern Irelands all over the country. What they did was let a small minority opt themselves out of the majority and Democratic system. Divide and rule has always been the Rights mantra, and nothing has changed

When they talk of choice, it is choice for me but not for thee.

Parhaps because so many Labour politicians are divorced from the realities of the working class mean that they do not attract votes. A system is only good as the people who work in it . The lack of breadth of experience of most MPs mean they lack the ability to earn respect. How many MPs have the sort of exprience of Ashdown and Cable obtained before they enter politics? Many poor people and immigrants learn to vote. Some people are just to bone idle.

If someone is too intimidated to learn how to vote , I hope I never have to depend upon them to defend this country. What must the ” The Few ” , those who served in the convoys and Bomber Command be thinking?

Young Mayors – sounds good. Do we know any more about the Lewisham election – what did the candidates campaign on, where did their support come from etc?

[5] I am not so bothered by differential turnout. The higher turn-out in Tory safe seats by comparison with Labour ones can be explained by solidaristic voting (expression of civic duty, possibly caused by an awareness amongst those voters that they pay more in taxes than they get back) as against instrumental voting. I remain to be convinced that the latter is in itself a problem.

EU citizens can also vote in local elections IIRC and in practice if non-EU citizens bother to register they can too (nobody checks up that closely). I think the latter group should have the right to vote in local elections, after all they pay Council Tax the same as the rest of us.

One problem you haven’t mentioned is people who actively avoid going on the voters’ roll, because they don’t wish to “exist officially”. I remember canvassing a block of flats in the 1980s most of which had a single female elector and time after time a young black guy would come to the door… OK, that was in the days of the Poll Tax, but I suspect the culture lingers on (e.g. the girl-friend stands to lose her single person’s discount on Council Tax). It would be possible to deal with this (in the spirit of Bair’s famous “joined-up government”) by giving Electoral Registration Officers (ERO) names and addresses from benefit claims, medical records etc but I suspect that Conspirators on the whole would oppose this. However, if the information passed across to the ERO was simply the name and postcode it would then be possible to add them to the electoral roll as “additional electors” for each polling district (I assume polling districts don’t cross postcode boundaries, although I suppose they might in more rural areas) whilst meeting the privacy concern. The parties would have the helluva time finding them to canvass, though…

“One of the features of the Thatcher/Major government was to allow Tory voters, and rich people to slowly opt out of Democracy.”

Make this girl Gordon Brown’s speech writer.

That Young Mayor thing sounds brilliant.

Also, they give you very little time to sign up for postal or proxy voting, and the forms are not obvious on the council website. I will be unable to vote this time because I couldn’t get the forms in the two days (one of which was a bank holiday) between me getting the polling card and the deadline for proxy voting. (The deadline for postal voting had long since passed.) This is not helpful for those who don’t spend all their time at the address they’re registered at. (I’m not even on the Electoral Register at my other home, and don’t know how to sign up.)

I’d tend to agree with Charlie – at least as a partial explanation. If I was a Tesco shopworker then I’d hardly be champing at the bit to go and vote for Kitty Ussher, Margaret Moran, Elliott Morley or James Purnell.

As well as representing non-voters by drawing people by lot, make election day a bank holiday, but if you do not vote /even if only to mark ‘none of the above’\ then you lose a days pay or a days benefit. This will give an incentive not just to vote but also be on the electoral roll.

Apathy and total distrust is why so many don’t vote.

Trot up to Yorkshire’s woollen district, ex-steel areas, mining areas and ask there – you will get the same reply all over – “They all piss in the same pot, so why would I vote for some one who wants my vote but does nowt for me?”

Getting people to vote is a matter of getting out there and, though it is even harder now, proving that you (MP) WILL make a difference.

But as we have seen – MPs, or the vast majority of them, are in parliament for themselves and NOT their constituents.

THAT is the part you have to change.

To show people how to vote is as simple as putting public service adverts back on the TV again – in newspapers and magazines. That is the least of the problems.

I see Will repeats the rather dubious assertion that MPs are somehow ‘in it for themselves’. I have to say, if someone wanted to make money – they would be far better going into the law (as Cherie Blair did) than going into politics. The money an MP earns or can claim in allowances is far less than a lot of lawyers, bankers, businessmen etc earn in a week! It is this corrosive cynicism that encourages people not to vote. Given my post on the previous thread on preference voting, though, I do think that some voters are so uninterested that they don’t need much encouragement from cynical commentators to abstain. They do it anyway.

Furthermore – and I haven’t posted on the expenses scandal – but thought I might as well do it now, I bet that if the average member of the public [who can be quite selfish and self-interested] was given the chance to claim up to £22k in expenses – they would be falling over themselves to claim far more than the average MP has.

A lot of the commentary on political change/reform is in my view rather misguided – as it starts with the dubious allegation that MPs are somehow more venal and more corrupt than the population in general. Given the amount of tax fraud, benefit fraud and general pilfering that takes place among the public, I seriously doubt that is the case.

With regard to getting people to vote, I do think that (a) people have to take some degree of interest in the society they live in and to some degree it is their failure that they don’t and (b) that parties need to present clear and concise election programmes and promote them to the public. If people are more clear about what parties stand for, then maybe about 80% of them would vote like in 1992 rather than the 50-60% that bother nowadays.

Sally, you Tory troll.

Did you read the original article or did you intend to comment on a different thread??

Don, I have to say that, if someone lacks the gumption to walk to a polling station and write a cross on a piece of paper, I am going to need some convincing that their view on who should govern us is likely to be pertinent.

I’m afraid that also goes for illegal immigrants and those afraid to go on the electoral roll because they are defrauding the benefits system .

AnonyMouse: I’m suree there is a lot of tax and benefit fraud. And when people are caught, not only does the law come down on them hard, but politicians actively encourage it (‘no ifs, no buts – benefit fraud is a crime’ springs to mind).

If I commit fraud, I go to jail for it. There’s no reason why MPs should be exempt just because you think everyone wants to be a crook.

I see that comprehension is still a handicap to some. Please feel free to re-read what I wrote.

Now – let’s now assume, as you have made it my claim, I do claim that MPs go into parliament for their own ends rather than public service. With the ‘happenings’ over the recent scandal of allowances whom do you feel the public would believe, my cliam that they go into parliament for their own ends or public service? I am sure you can see the barn door where the public perception IS that MPs go to that place for themselves.

Being in a position of power can be far more satisfying to some than the cash they earn – MPs, I have no doubt do go to parliament to serve – but what if the power that is invested in them brings them off like Debbie did Dallas?

Would money just be the stimulant?

It is this corrosive cynicism that encourages people not to vote.

Quite! But yet you become cynical of the average Joe because he/she is obviously as corrupt as MPs who have claimed thousands of pounds for moat cleaning and Duck pond ornaments!?

I certainly don’t understand the 22K figure – I think you will find that the vast majority of cynicism and apathy is where people earn far less than that – 22K would be a dream world for them.

Given the amount of tax fraud, benefit fraud and general pilfering that takes place among the public, I seriously doubt that is the case.

*Sighs*

Would you support Aussie style compulsory voting?
(Complusory turning up anyway…)

Tim W, anyone who has paid any attention to the news and to the website of groups like the Tax Justice Network knows full well that vast amounts of tax avoidance (legal) and evasion (illegal) goes on and hardly anyone ever gets prosecuted for the illegal parts of it. The whole economies of the Channel Islands, Caymen Islands etc are based on it.

And, whether you like it or not, the ‘within the rules’ excuse that most MPs use to defend their claims means its not fraud [if something is permissible then it can’t legally count as fraud, can it?]

Will, I have explained that I think the public perception is wrong. And, you may call me cynical about the public when I say that most people would be falling over themselves to claim allowances if they could get them, but I think its true. I have to say that, if I was in a job where it was genuinely within the rules to claim for mortgage interest on a 2nd home if I had one, then I would claim it. I am at least being honest about this – I think a lot of people who are being self-righteous about expenses claims would themselves, if they were in a similar situation. I wonder how many people in the country at large have actually turned down allowances that it was possible for them to claim.

I am therefore not going to get on my moral high horse and condemn MPs for doing things that are legal that I might have done in their situation.

Re whether some people are intoxicated with power, then, yes, that’s clearly the case. I am sure some people would prefer getting £100k or so a year as a minister rather than £500k as a lawyer or company director since they exercise more power as a minister. That is a slightly different kind of vice from greed, though, and dealing with that requires either a much smaller and weaker state (as libertarians want) or more devolution/decentralisation of power.

cjcjc, I actually think compulsory voting is a good idea. If people don’t like the candidates, they can always spoil their paper.

Several experienced politicians have said there are far too many MPs relative to the amount of work in parliament

How many man-hours are spent by MPs scrutinising each clause of legislation?

Actually, I imagine that the answer is “almost none”, because they always vote on party lines.

If you actually want MPs to do their job, you will need to reduce the governments power of patronage over the majority Party.

AnonyMouse –

The allowances were to do their constituency job. We all know that. IF MPs were to read the rules as they were supposed to be then we wouldn’t have this problem. They obviously read them in a way that allowed this situation to arise. Some MPs did and some even claimed zero amounts. The saints as it were.

The rules, I agree, were not tight enough. But these people are supposed to be clever, brainy, intelligent even – they knew what they were doing was wrong.

My view on libertarians are that they are no more than anarchists in suits.

Should there be less MPs in parliament – yes. Should there be less bureaucracy in local and central government? – Most certainly.

You want people to vote? Give them something to vote for – not against.

One thing that any new government could do to get people out to vote is energise them with the knowledge that you WILL bring good paying jobs to those areas where unemployment is rife!

I will say this until my dying day – people want jobs and not benefits, but they want jobs that pay them well enough to look after their family, so they can save a bit and have their annual holiday to where ever.

Will, there is no point going over this debate again as we do seem to be approaching it from different angles. I am simply saying that, in most cases, MPs were claiming an allowance they were able to claim within the rules. I am also saying that most people will claim every penny they are entitled to. I am not saying whether it is ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ but simply that, if it is wrong, then lots of us would do the wrong thing.

My underlying view when making the comments on the allowances issue in this thread has been that I have become bored of the self-righteous tone that certain journalists, commentators and members of the public have taken over this. My view is that of Macauly, who said ‘We know no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality’ (source: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Macaulay,_Thomas_Babington)

A couple of technical points.

Getting onto the electoral register is easy and has been easy for 20 years. You phone up your council and they send you an application in the post. Prior to one of the 1980s RPAs, you needed to be resident when the council sent the forms out in October and the council would publish draft registers that were on display at libraries and post offices. Voters needed to ensure that their name was on the draft, because it was almost impossible to correct mistakes. However, you could vote at a former address if you were registered there or apply for a postal vote.

Generally, obtaining a postal or proxy vote was incredibly difficult and you needed to apply months in advance of an election. The system assumed that you worked regular hours at a single location close to your home. 1980s RPA changes meant that those who travelled regularly were given a postal vote for all elections, rather than planning for them. Given improvements in technology for managing databases such as the electoral roll, I agree that there is a strong case for reducing the timescale for a voting application of any kind.

Sorry, Tim f, but widespread use of postal voting simply encourages electoral fraud. In the 1980s and earlier, court reports of electoral fraud in mainland UK were considered a bizarre phenomenon, but in the last five years members of all mainstream parties have been caught fiddling. Primarily in relation to postal and proxy votes. The last EU elections were conducted entirely by postal vote in my region, so I spoiled my paper.

When a minority of votes are submitted by post or proxy, it is possible for party observers or council monitors to detect fraud. Representatives can attend the opening of postal vote envelopes, can see the number of Xs for each candidate/party and can read the register of those who have submitted a postal vote. If an observer notes that a dead person has voted, s/he can raise an objection. Can anyone help with numbers, here? 500 postal votes is a lot, isn’t it?

When 100% of votes are submitted by post or proxy, fraud observation is not realistic. Some people claim that fraud was not identified in the regions where postal voting was mandated in the 2004 EU election; 3.4 million voting papers were issued in the East Midlands where I didn’t vote.

I don’t buy the fraud argument. It would be a lot easier to commit impersonation offences than it would be to commit voter fraud where signatures and dates of birth are required. And the idea that voter fraud was not prevalent in the past is a nonsense. The stories you hear about what used to go on – people voting for people who’d been dead for months or years, people shaving then going back to vote, etc, suggest there was no golden age where no fraud took place.

20.cjcjc. Voting should be compulsory and there should be a box saying none of the above. It is time the parties realised how few people actually vote for for the winner. Politicicians are very good at avoiding the issue of how few people actually vote for them.

I see Will repeats the rather dubious assertion that MPs are somehow ‘in it for themselves’. I have to say, if someone wanted to make money – they would be far better going into the law (as Cherie Blair did) than going into politics.

Albeit that you’re presupposing most MPs posess the talent to become lawyers, an assumption which I would question. I wouldn’t particularly want Nadine Dorries in my corner.