The vexed question of whether cities in England should have elected executive Mayors has once again been brought to the fore. Personally I am very much opposed to such a concentration of power. I see that the Conservative Party nationally has now stated that it will conduct referenda in the main cities of the country including Birmingham. The question of referenda is an interesting one - particularly for Liberal Democrats such as myself. The principle is fine and commendable, but the value and validity depend on the way that a referendum is carried out.
If the intention is genuinely to establish the true wishes of the people and it is framed and conducted in that spirit, then none can reasonably object. If however the intention is to achieve a result that fulfils the policies or ideology of those who happen to be in power, then both process and outcome are likely to be flawed.
I see three main considerations. First consider the choices put to the electorate. In my opinion these should include a representative range of the reasonable options. For example, one of the options presented to the people should be that of the committee system which was abolished by the Labour Government under Mr Blair. There is reason to believe that many people would like to see this tried and tested form of local governance restored in preference to its polar opposite, an elected executive mayor. My understanding is that this choice will not be made available. Perhaps I could be forgiven for suspecting that an incoming government has a desired outcome in mind - rather like the existing Government in fact? However it is clearly true that if options are significantly restricted then the result may not accord with the wishes of the people. The questions and options must be fairly expressed. Practice elsewhere closely involves the proponents and opponents of a proposal in the framing of questions. I wonder to what extent we will see balanced engagement here.
The second consideration is the information provided to the electorate.
It will no doubt be claimed that there will be a ‘debate’ preceding the ballot. To the extent that there is any informed discussion at all, some such public ‘debates’ have been a travesty - lacking any discernible structure with politicians trotting out party ‘messages’ and newspapers parading the biases of their owners. There has, for example, been no ‘debate’ to speak of on the important question of enforced mass medication through the water supply (for example, population dosing with fluoride). If our political masters wish to copy American systems - as Mr Blair undoubtedly did and Mr Cameron seems similarly inclined to do - let us at least make this a fair copy. When there are referenda in US states, an information pack is provided to all electors with simple statements made in a uniform format for and against the propositions or alternatives to be decided. These are prepared through involvement of the proposers and opposers. As an example, here is a link to the information provided by the State of Massachusetts in the November general election:
If the intention is genuinely to establish the true wishes of the people and it is framed and conducted in that spirit, then none can reasonably object. If however the intention is to achieve a result that fulfils the policies or ideology of those who happen to be in power, then both process and outcome are likely to be flawed.I see three main considerations. First consider the choices put to the electorate. In my opinion these should include a representative range of the reasonable options. For example, one of the options presented to the people should be that of the committee system which was abolished by the Labour Government under Mr Blair. There is reason to believe that many people would like to see this tried and tested form of local governance restored in preference to its polar opposite, an elected executive mayor. My understanding is that this choice will not be made available. Perhaps I could be forgiven for suspecting that an incoming government has a desired outcome in mind - rather like the existing Government in fact? However it is clearly true that if options are significantly restricted then the result may not accord with the wishes of the people. The questions and options must be fairly expressed. Practice elsewhere closely involves the proponents and opponents of a proposal in the framing of questions. I wonder to what extent we will see balanced engagement here.
The second consideration is the information provided to the electorate.
It will no doubt be claimed that there will be a ‘debate’ preceding the ballot. To the extent that there is any informed discussion at all, some such public ‘debates’ have been a travesty - lacking any discernible structure with politicians trotting out party ‘messages’ and newspapers parading the biases of their owners. There has, for example, been no ‘debate’ to speak of on the important question of enforced mass medication through the water supply (for example, population dosing with fluoride). If our political masters wish to copy American systems - as Mr Blair undoubtedly did and Mr Cameron seems similarly inclined to do - let us at least make this a fair copy. When there are referenda in US states, an information pack is provided to all electors with simple statements made in a uniform format for and against the propositions or alternatives to be decided. These are prepared through involvement of the proposers and opposers. As an example, here is a link to the information provided by the State of Massachusetts in the November general election: 
Highly commendable in my view, and the results of the referenda were undoubtedly valid and thus fully accepted by the public. But will we see the same here on the important question of the form that our local government takes? I doubt it, but I would be delighted to be proved wrong.Thirdly there is the method of voting. You will no doubt not be surprised when I take the view as a Liberal Democrat that preferences should be ranked - 1, 2, 3, etc and counted by transferable vote. This rather than electors being allowed only to state a view about one option - that which they most prefer (perhaps not by much) and with no ability to indicate the option that they least want. Before the cries of protest go up from supporters of other political parties (on the unlikely assumption that they have read this far!) let me point out that if this system had been adopted for the first elected mayor referendum in Birmingham they would most likely have got their way. I say this since two broadly similar variants of the concentration-of-power-in-the-hands-of-a-single-individual model were presented alongside the ‘Cabinet’ model that emerged as the ‘winner’ as judged by the primitive first-past-the-post method of voting. Needless to say, the Government restricted the choices that were put in front of the electorate.
So there you have it - or more likely you don’t have it - some of the factors involved in doing referenda properly. Perhaps if the Conservatives gain power, Baron Heseltine - the single individual who, apparently, will determine the question to be put - will have a Road to Damascus conversion and engage Electoral Reform Services to advise!
Ho hum. About as likely, I would say, as having an outcome that we could be confident reflected the true wishes of the English people. We shall no doubt see - under this Government or the next.
No comments:
Post a Comment