@unlockdemocracy - it may only be one vote, but it's precious to me...

Yesterday, the postman brought a largish envelope from Electoral Reform Services, containing my ballot paper for the election of a new Council for Unlock Democracy. I am reminded that time flies, having opened the envelope only to find that most of the names are relatively unfamiliar. Given that I was not only on Council myself, but was even a member of the Management Board until four years ago, that might come as a surprise to some.

And so, I have the challenge of deciding how to cast my vote. Ruling out those who haven't managed to submit a manifesto - sorry, but that must surely be a minimum requirement - as well as those whose political views appear to contradict the aims of the organisation, leaves me with a gratifyingly long list.

In order to find out a little more about them, I've asked those on the list a question via e-mail;

Is it ever right to personalise a campaign by attacking individuals, as the UD Lords Reform campaign has tended to do, and if so, when and why?

And for those candidates who didn't supply an e-mail address, please assume that you will be ranked further down my preference list than those who did. It's a participatory democracy, and if you don't want us to play, you might not be entering into the spirit of the thing...

I await some answers... and reserve the right to ask follow-ups...

Vaguely annoyed by another pointless generalisation

Unlock Democracy! Yes, you! Over here!

And now that I have your attention, might I be so bold as to ask that, in return for my annual subscription, you desist from sending me e-mails seemingly designed to annoy me.

What's that, you say? You don't mean to annoy me? Perhaps you might explain the use of the phrase "the out of touch and unelected Lords" then. Yes, I acknowledge that they are unelected, but out of touch?

It is a modern truism that, when arguing a case, it is as well to find ways of discrediting your opponents. However, the fact that someone doesn't agree with you doesn't actually mean that they are necessarily out of touch - indeed, it could be that they're right and that you're out of touch. But even assuming that some Peers are wrong and out of touch, insulting those who actually support the cause of Lords reform is pointless, insulting and counterproductive.

It was enough to point out the unelected nature of the House of Lords, but Unlock Democracy seems determined to alienate the very people whose support will be required to achieve its long term goal - this is not the first time that an e-mail from them on this subject has irked me.

And to be honest, as an interested party with a strong belief in the value of democracy and civil society, such needless discourtesy makes me less minded, not more, to contribute to the work of the organisation in the future.

It's a pity, really, as I still retain a fondness for Unlock Democracy, its leadership and the people who work for it. But call me old-fashioned if you will, I still believe in trying to respect your opponent...

Unlock Democracy: applying napalm to my very own burning bridge

I have already touched upon the issue of the declared rules for the internal elections to the Council of Unlock Democracy. At the time, Ros did suggest that I might regret addressing the issue in such a blunt manner and, as usual, she was right.

However, constancy to a set of principles is important too, and my friends will know that I've banged on about internal democracy for many years. To me, it is critical to an informed and participatory society. But I have agreed to disagree with most of my fellow Council members, if only to acknowledge the fact that we all have our own reasons for taking the stances we do.

What I do object to is some of the reactions of individuals. It appears that, to at least one of them, the idea of blogging is cause for ridicule, and that the notion that I might wish to express an opinion other than that of the group is somehow strange. Another has expressed the view that use of social media will discriminate against some candidates and, whilst I entirely see where the view stems from, it does appear to represent an equally valid argument against the use of social media in public elections, surely not a notion most would endorse.

But the final blow to morale was the comments placed on both of my recent blog entries, which were clearly a 'cut and paste' job.

So, to save them the trouble...

Unlock Democracy's internal election regulations are decided by our members. The rules are designed to provide a level playing field and to prevent wealthier candidates from having too great an advantage. The current rules were set before Facebook and Twitter were in widespread use.

Any member concerned about these rules could have submitted a standing order amendment to our AGM.  No-one did so. We are keen to encourage as many members as possible to stand for election. For more details see our website: http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/elections

There are times for irony, times for sarcasm, and times for despair. And once you've dealt with those, it's time to move on...

Throwing away the key... how not to run internal elections

I find myself in an unusual position. Well, actually not that unusual, in that I find myself in opposition to a bunch of conservatives who find social media 'a bit difficult'. So, where are these reactionaries?

Here is an excerpt from the election rules for the organisation;

"No candidate may pro-actively campaign for election online, or allow anyone else to campaign on their behalf. This includes - but is not limited to - setting up special Twitter accounts, "friending" or "following" people for the explicit purpose of campaigning, establishing a Facebook group or page, pro-actively "tagging" friends with status updates about their candidacy, writing a blog post, recording a video or audio message."

and another;

"Candidates may inform their existing friends and social contacts that they are standing and may answer direct questions about their candidacy, if asked. This applies to the informal use of social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.). However, there is inevitably a thin line between informing and campaigning via social media and there are circumstances in which  a candidate may not be able to control how their communications on social media are subsequently relayed by others."

Having just stamped out such nonsense from within the candidate selection rules of my own Party, you cannot believe how frustrating it is to encounter it again. But how frustrating do you think it is to discover that these rules come from the internal election calling notice of 'Unlock Democracy'?

I should like to put on record that I am deeply disappointed that an organisation that calls for a better informed, more participatory democracy should have such repressive election rules, a point I have made most forcefully to my fellow Council members.

It is a sad indictment of the organisation's leadership that I find myself in the position where I can't even tell you whether I intend to run for re-election or not. Because, no matter how ludicrous the rules are, I feel collectively bound to honour them.

So, until I either announce that I'm not running, or the close of poll on 21 June, I am able to give no inkling as to what is happening. What a crying pity, and what a terrible irony...

Labour's decision to get off the electoral reform fence welcomed

Welcoming the news that MPs will be asked to debate an amendment to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill to enable a referendum to be held on changing the electoral system to the Alternative Vote, director of Unlock Democracy Peter Facey said; 

We welcome the fact that the government has, at last, come off the fence on this issue.  A manifesto commitment to a referendum on electoral reform without legislation to back it up would have been an empty gesture, especially given Labour's track record in reneging on such pledges in the past.  We regret however that the system on offer has been handpicked by ministers rather than as a result of a deliberative process involving the public and we are concerned that they have not left themselves with enough time to ensure this Bill receives Royal Assent before Parliament is dissolved.

Unlock Democracy will continue to make the case for a proportional electoral system. The Alternative Vote system is not a proportional system, although it does offer greater choice for the voter and will require all MPs to acquire the support of at least half of their constituents. It is a step in the right direction but what we need is a system that reflects the votes cast across the country. We now live in a multi-party democracy, as chosen by the voters over successive elections, but our system does not reflect that. "

The Conservatives are now the only party committed to maintaining the existing, broken, first past the post voting system. Their continued failure to embrace the need for electoral reform damages the credibility of their claims to be a party of 'change'. After years of scandal and voter alienation, we simply can’t go on like this."

Open Up Now? No, I really don't think so...

The idea of involving more people in our democracy is always a laudable one. Increasing turnout, encouraging a wider spread of candidates and thus voter choice, making people feel better connected to those who purport to represent them, all of these are concepts which I whole-heartedly support. As a member of the Council and Management Board of 'Unlock Democracy', I don't just think about it, I play a small role in helping to campaign for real change.

And yet I look upon 'Open Up' with a degree of horror. The idea that all applicants should go through an open primary system to pick the candidates of each and every Party should really be seen for what it is - a nonsense. If a political party, open to all, wishes to decide how it should decide upon a candidate, then it should have the right to do so as it chooses, not through an expensive process which, may I remind the backers of Open Up, has to be paid for.

It's all very well for them to suggest that there is plenty of money available, as they do in their Q & A:

Of course, it will cost money to hold Open Primaries. But what price better government? From the financial crisis to the expenses scandal, it's obvious that our system must improve. As taxpayers we pay a lot now, and we're going to pay more. We need the best people to be the stewards for our money and our future. Against this background the extra cost of Open Primaries seems very small. On top of this consider the costs of a General Election…where we don’t have a choice in our candidates:

• The Department for Constitutional Affairs estimated the cost of administering the 2005 general election in England and Wales was approximately £71 million in public funds. (House of Commons Written Answers for 25 May 2005)
• Spending for the three main parties in 2005 was more than £40 million. (Electoral Commission, "Election 2005: Campaign Spending"). This is in addition to the £71 cited above.
  Conservative Party £17,852,245
  Labour Party £17,939,618
  Liberal Democrats £4,324,574

What an astonishingly dense point to make. The first element is spent regardless, and pays for returning officers, the staff who man polling stations, counting agents, printing of ballot papers, the list goes on. The second element is raised by the political parties from their supporters. I can't speak for the two 'ugly sisters' but our Cinderella raises most of its money from our members and the money is spent on a small but precious staff, leaflets, posters and the tools used to communicate our messages to voters.

There is no suggestion as to how much open primaries will cost, nor what they hope to achieve apart from a nebulous concept that they will give voters more choice. Really? How does that work? In an open primary, is the whole electorate equipped to decide who is the best Liberal Democrat, or best Green or, heaven forbid, BNP candidate for its constituency? And if the political party spends all of its income on selecting a candidate, how does it then tell anyone what that candidate is campaigning about, or for, or against? Perhaps Alan Parker and his friends are planning to have a whipround?

Indeed, if they want the open process they claim to seek, are they going to prevent political parties from vetting candidates? At which point, how do you ensure that the Liberal Democrat candidate is actually a Liberal Democrat? And you know, I want to be confident that he or she is.

I'm afraid that this looks like a plot to remove smaller political parties, neuter the Liberal Democrats, and return British politics to the two-party red/blue politics of the 1950's. No, if they are serious about opening up the political process, why not campaign for multi-member open list constituencies elected using STV? That way, anyone can run, political parties are forced to offer up a range of candidates in order to appeal to a diverse community, and you abolish the safe seat.

Instead, this is not so much a missed opportunity as an attempt to hitch a ride on the bandwagon of public revulsion at politics, politicians and all of their works.