Sponsored by
Lewis Baston: I'd vote for a system to revitalise our democracy in decay
The campaigns for the local elections are well underway but when people vote next month will they get what they vote for?
The local elections last May were a study in contrasts. In England, there was a picture of democracy in decay in many areas. Meanwhile, the Scottish local elections were a successful change to a new system that gives a better result for voters and should help to revitalise local government.
There were several authorities in England in which the result was decided before a single vote was cast. Labour in Easington (County Durham), and the Conservatives in Fenland (Lincolnshire) won control as soon as nominations closed because not enough opposition candidates bothered to put up for election.
There were others in which the voters asked for one thing, and got another. The electors of Darlington voted 39 per cent Conservative, 29 per cent Labour, and got a Labour majority controlled council. In Sheffield, Labour won the most votes but lost control of the council as the Lib Dems got more seats.
In another set of English councils, the largest party in the local area steamrollered every other point of view. The Conservatives deserved to win a majority in Tunbridge Wells, because they had 58 per cent of the vote, but is it really in the interests of local government or democracy for nobody from the remaining 42 per cent of voters even to win a seat? Labour in Leicester, and the Lib Dems in Eastleigh, also benefited from completely disproportional mandates.
Particularly given that power is exercised mostly by the local cabinet, it is necessary for healthy local politics for opposition views to be represented in the council chamber. Simple justice suggests that people's votes should be valued rather than wasted as they are in so many local authorities. But is there another way, and even if a new idea might seem to work in theory, how would it stand up under real-world conditions?
We do not have to look far for an example to prove that there is a better way. North of the Tweed, competition in local elections was revitalised. Voters in the Scottish local elections had, on average, more than twice as many candidates to choose from as last time. More voters also got what they voted for than ever before – 74 per cent saw their first choice candidate elected to the council, and many of the remaining 26 per cent had some say in electing a councillor. If one wants a direct link between the councillor and the elector, you cannot do much better than that.
Councils in Scotland are now representative of the balance of local opinion between the parties than they were before. Even where a party has done well enough to win an overall majority, there is a decent number of opposition councillors to exercise the scrutiny
functions that are essential in modern local government. These dramatic and beneficial changes are the result of the introduction of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system of election for Scottish councils.
It is not fair to compare directly turnout in the two sets of local elections, even though such a comparison would look vastly to Scotland's benefit (about 38 per cent in England outside London, compared to more than 50 per cent in Scotland). Turnout was determined mostly by the level of interest in the Scottish Parliament elections on the same day – a body with more powers and a closer contest between Labour and the SNP. In this context, it is worth noting that the local elections were largely free of the logistical problems that dogged the Scottish Parliament election, and voters found the new STV system relatively simple not only to cast a valid vote, but record an order of preference between candidates.
Change in the local electoral system has unlocked change in the way representation and government work at a local level. Councils are exploring new ways of working, and councillors themselves seem to be working harder than ever before for their constituents. Multi-member wards, with more than one party having a councillor in every area, seem to bring the benefits of competition to the core public service that representing the electorate really is.
Turnout and participation in elections are about a lot more than the electoral system. Local politics has suffered from the steady flow of powers to central government and unelected local bodies.
By itself, a change in system will not bridge the gap between people and politicians, even at a local level, but it will at least ensure that the incentives are in the right direction.
More choice is surely better than less, healthy competition better than complacent one party states (or the rise of extreme parties in neglected areas), and more people being represented by someone for whom they have voted is surely beneficial as well.
The remedy for these problems, at least, is to be found relatively close to home.
Lewis Baston is director of research at the Electoral Reform Society.
Email to a friend
Print this page- Leeds lose Ward to Palace: Is there anyone they can afford now?
- Sheffield Wednesday leaving it late to hijack Leeds United over Ward
- As Snodgrass dithers over Leeds, Warnock throws a lifeline
- Ball is in Leeds United’s court over contract - Snodgrass
- Police turning blind eye to Asian voter fraud, says MP
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Yorkshire
Saturday 26 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 8 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 17 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 22 C
Wind Speed: 13 mph
Wind direction: East
