Keeping the Promise

Labour's 2005 Manifesto Britain: Forward not Back highlights the progress made so far on Parliamentary reform and the measures Labour intends to introduce in its third term:

Labour has already taken steps to make the House of Commons more representative, through all-women shortlists. Labour will also continue to support reforms that improve parliamentary accountability and scrutiny led by the successful Modernisation Committee. In our first term, we ended the absurdity of a House of Lords dominated by hereditary peers. Labour believes that a reformed Upper Chamber must be effective, legitimate and more representative without challenging the primacy of the House of Commons. Following a review conducted by a committee of both Houses, we will seek agreement on codifying the key conventions of the Lords, and developing alternative forms of scrutiny that complement rather than replicate those of the Commons; the review should also explore how the upper chamber might offer a better route for public engagement in scrutiny and policy-making. We will legislate to place reasonable limits on the time bills spend in the second chamber – no longer than 60 sitting days for most bills.

Labour Party Manifesto 2005. Chapter 9 'Democracy: power devolved, citizens empowered'

Labour makes these specific pledges:

As part of the process of modernisation, we will remove the remaining hereditary peers and allow a free vote on the composition of the House.

Labour remains committed to reviewing the experience of the new electoral systems – introduced for the devolved administrations, the European Parliament and the London Assembly. A referendum remains the right way to agree any change for Westminster.

Labour Party Manifesto 2005. Chapter 9 'Democracy: power devolved, citizens empowered'

The promise has been made. Now we must keep the party and its leaders to it; and ensure that the review is initiated as speedily as possible following the election.

Forward not Back

We are at the eve at what looks likely to be Labour’s third term under the current voting system, a system which has delivered strong government but lacking the legitimacy which would enhance our democracy. The general election will also decide the size of Labour's majority, which leading commentators are predicting will be between 70 and 80, half of what it has been since 1997. Many of us believe that electoral reform, the referendum and the review haven't yet happened precisely because of the 1997 landslide victory. However that does not mean that we can spare any of loyal Electoral Reformers among the current Labour MPs who are standing again. We hope to do some work to ensure that tactical voting goes in their direction, encouraging candidates to raise the issue of reforming the voting system in election addresses, in talking to the media, and by putting their membership of LCER, Make Votes Count and the Electoral Reform Society into the guides to the election and their profiles thereafter. We are keen that voters who are logging onto the burgeoning websites to inform their vote will remember that to change politics we need MPs who listen and promote reform. We need not simply a House which has a majority for reform but to hold on to Labour’s reformers who can argue the case with their colleagues and with ministers. People who are looking at the situation in their own constituency, rather than voting for the national party, need to have precise information about the positions of their candidates, hence our website review.

As we look forward to this third term, we cannot in all honesty argue that there has been much movement on electoral reform for the Commons since the Jenkins Commission reported in 1998. Two significant victories did however occur during Labour’s second term: PR for the next local elections in Scotland and when, in 2003, looking at policy outcome in Scotland and Wales, Roy Hattersley did a mea culpa on electoral reform. Of course we have all had some experience of new proportional voting systems for the Scottish and European Parliaments, for the Welsh and London Assemblies. To call them “new” is no longer relevant as they have all been used in two elections. What we haven’t had is the Review of these systems which will recommend whether or not we put a different voting system for the Commons to referendum. What we have had is a failed referendum in the North East to replace the current regional chambers by an elected assembly, which would have been elected by AMS, additional member system. Again, Labour has no election pledge on democracy. We do need to secure our democracy not just our frontiers. So things can only get better in the third term.

Already we have a referendum in British Columbia to look forward to and electoral reform is on the agenda in India. There is an argument which may appeal to Hattersley as a Rawlsian, and to those who believe that justice is not being served by the status quo, that the voting system of this country should be the one you would choose behind a veil of ignorance, if you did not know where you were to live, or which party you were going to support. We need to create a climate where electoral reform is a logical accompaniment to democratic legitimacy, turnout improvement, engagement in the political process and cooperative cultural change to a grown up politics most of us would prefer.

April 2005