Today we’ve welcomed news that BBC Scotland is to set aside an extra £5 million for dedicated coverage of the 2014 Independence Referendum.

We are now looking at a team of 50 tasked with providing coverage and encouraging debate at national and local level – and online.

Over 4 million registered voters will make a decision on the future of their country in 2014 – and £1.25 per head seems a small price to pay for a proper debate. We now have a much better chance of the 2014 referendum being an example of excellence in democratic practice.  

The importance of the vote on Scottish Independence in 2014 is beyond doubt. But it is unclear if voters will have the information they need to make an informed decision.

The two campaigns will offer us soundbites, ‘confusion marketing’ and attack ad politics. Voters deserve better.

It has long been the job of the public service broadcasters to see beyond the hyperbole of professional political campaigners. This funding should be used for high quality, ethical journalism to achieve just that.

Today a new bill lands in parliament today, courtesy of Labour’s Alan Whitehead, Lib Dem Lord Tyler and Conserative Andrew Tyrie.
 
It deserves attention – because it offers a sensible, cross party approach to party funding.
 
This bill puts pay to the myth that cross-party solution to party funding isn’t possible. Caps on spending and donations are the only logical response to the electoral arms race.

This week’s figures show how reliant the parties have become on a dwindling number of big donors. Electoral Commission estimates for the first quarter of 2013 show Labour received over £1.5 million from John Mills, founder of home shopping company JML Direct, while Conservatives received £500,000 a piece from the wife of a former arms dealer, and the Chief Executive of head of mining conglomerate Xstrata.  And it’s only natural for the public to question their motives.

That policies are not for sale should be beyond doubt. We have reached an impasse because our political class only seem to be motivated by their own bank balances. They need to understand that delay has a price – and that’s public trust in politics.

This week the Times went suggested that Labour drop two policies in order to attract corporate funding.  This was breath-taking. Political parties should base their manifestos on their vision for how the United Kingdom could be – not leave it to the highest bidder.  Support or rejection of a policy programme should rest on strength at the ballot box, not the depth of donors’ pockets.

An open, clean and fair model of funding the parties would give taxpayers far better value for money.  It would ensure our politicians don’t have to dance to the tune of trusts, union bosses or City interests

We cannot wait for the next scandal. All the parties have been tainted by party funding. Party leaders need to take this opportunity break the deadlock, and break the hold of big money on our politics.
 

Following the county council elections we’ve been hearing a lot about ‘None of the Above’.
 
The IPPR recently flagged None of the Above – or NOTA – as a part of their plan to boost youth turnout – making voting for under 24s compulsory, but ensuring there’s an option for first time voters to register their disdain for the candidates on offer.
 
The Greeks have the ‘white’ option on their ballot; the US State of Nevada has ‘None of these candidates’. Spain and Columbia have the voto en blanco. Russia abolished it in 2006. Bangladesh introduced it in 2008. And Pakistani voters would have had the option in last weeks’ general election had their electoral commission not rejected it.
 
NOTA’s younger brother RON may be familiar to those well versed in student politics (for those that aren’t that’s Re Open Nominations). But should the rest of the UK sign up? We’ve seen petitions and campaigns springing up and we want to see what our supporters think.
 
So what are the arguments?
 
The upside. Well we might get a measure of political disenchantment in Britain.
 
We won’t have to speculate about what kept people at home. Nearly 16 million potential voters passed on the 2010 general election, and that should concern us all. The logic is that turnout would increase if those turned off by the parties are given a chance to express their view.
 
The downside? Shouldn’t elections be a positive statement? Will what’s been billed as the ‘ultimate protest vote’ do anything to bridge the growing gap between people and politics? Isn’t this all a bit, well, anti-politics?
 
Where NOTA is an available option the limited evidence to hand suggests it isn’t widely used – it’s populists and hard left and right parties that remain the main beneficiaries of protest votes.
 
And there are a lot of unknown quantities.
 
What would happen in the event of a NOTA victory is unclear. Should the seat remain vacant? Would voters get the candidates they were pining for?
 
We’ll leave that to you. Give us your view in the comments box below.

That seemed to be a common complaint from the 2013 County Council Elections. We’ve conducted a string of interviews for local radio where many voters seemed to feel they didn’t see an election.
 
Well if you didn’t hear from the parties it’s because your vote doesn’t matter.
 
In local elections under First Past the Post there are two kinds of voter:  those in safe wards, that parties can take for granted, and those in marginal wards that can tip the balance. A handful of addresses in a handful of wards can mean the difference between victory and defeat, and those golden voters can expect leaflets en masse, door knocking, phone calls – the full monty of election campaigning.
 
So fresh from an interview for BBC Oxfordshire we thought we see what this meant for leaflets – and voters – in one county.
 
The Conservatives lost control of Oxfordshire Council – but where was this battle fought? Well it wasn’t in the Conservative heartlands in east and west (you can add the north of the county to the list with the exception of Banbury). It wasn’t fought in the Labour strongholds in the City of Oxford. And the battleground wasn’t the handful of Lib Dem bastions in commuter towns around the city.
 
297,000 voters were unlucky enough to live in these safe wards – that’s 59% of the total electorate.
 
If you wanted to see leaflets then the centre of Oxford was the place to be – a battleground heavily contested by the centre left.  Lib Dems, Labour and Greens out in force – and lots of competition means lots of literature. Banbury saw leaflets galore as it went from blue to red, and several wards bordering Oxford tightly contested between Lib Dems and Conservatives wouldn’t have been short of a few copies of Focus.  Some 204,000 golden voters in Oxfordshire’s marginals were getting all the attention.
 

 
Just take a look over on Election leaflets to see the difference. This site has been crowdsourcing the material that’s been landing on our mats for years.  And it paints a compelling picture of the two kinds of elections voters see in this country.
And it’s as much quality as quantity. There are the full colour glossies received by wards in contention and the grim risographed efforts of paper candidates. And most tellingly of all there are the missing leaflets from parties that aren’t prepared to engage with potential supporters in no-go areas – or even their own voters in their safe wards.
 
Pop in a postcode for central Oxford and you’ll be spoiled for choice. Check out a postcode for the Eastern fringe of the county, and you’ll be lucky to see anything.
 
Don’t get us wrong, this behaviour is entirely logical. With limited resources parties will put all their effort in the handful of places where it might make a difference.
 
But that’s the logic of First Past the Post. All voters deserve to be part of a debate on the future of their community – but that debate isn’t happening in most of Oxfordshire – or indeed in most of the country.
 
Fair votes for local elections in Scotland have meant the parties can’t get away from engaging with their electorate because all votes matter. It isn’t possible to deem any ward as ‘in the bag’. It means voters are on the receiving end of more debate, and dare we say it, more leaflets.
Voters in Oxfordshire deserve the same deal.
 
If you didn’t hear from the parties in the local elections we want to hear from you www.electoral-reform.org.uk/rottenboroughs
 
Still hanging onto leaflets? Upload them to www.electionleaflets.org 
 

Some more good news from today’s Queen’s Speech. And this time it’s for something that’s actually in it.

The Coalition Government is now pledged to bring forward draft legislation to reform elections in Wales.

The current way Wales elects its AMs, a hybrid system known as the ‘Mixed Member System’ (40 via First Past The Post constituencies and 20 Regional List members) is far from perfect. The ban on dual candidacy applies to candidates wanting to stand in both a constituency seat and on a regional list, and has been in force since the 2007 elections.

It’s a ban that should never have been introduced in the first place. It was a measure which was imposed against the wishes of the National Assembly by the then UK Labour government. When a similar measure was considered in Scotland, the cross-party Arthbuthnot Commission firmly rejected a ban. Yet the last Labour Government pressed ahead.

The result? According to Cardiff University Wales Governance Centre, Wales is the only nation in the world – other than the Ukraine to impose such a ban.

Opponents of dual candidacy cling to the ‘Clwyd West’ problem – the situation when in 2003 the defeated Conservative, Plaid Cymru and Liberal Democrat candidates all gained election to the National Assembly – via the North Wales regional list. But the ‘problem’ appears to occupy the minds of those in the political bubble much more than voters – as Arthbuthnot discovered.

Former German chancellor and architect of re-unification Helmut Kohl was himself a List Member of the Bundestag between 1982 and 1990 when he lost out in his constituency. No one questioned his mandate and it’s hard to see why dual candidacy appears to be much more of an issue in Clwyd West than it was in West Germany.

We’ve been leading the call for change. The ban on dual candidacy means that across Wales, for the Conservatives, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats – and to a certain extent Labour outside of its heartlands, candidates have to play a game of Russian Roulette at each election. If a party does well and increases its share of the vote, like the Conservatives did in the 2011 Assembly elections, it’s likely that additional First Past The Post constituency seats will be won at the expense of list seats. The case of Nick Bourne – then Welsh Conservative leader and Mid & West Wales AM being knocked out by a Tory victory in the Montgomeryshire constituency is one such example.

Surely that’s democracy – some people win, some people lose? In an institution as small as the National Assembly, this unpredictable churn inevitably impacts on the scrutiny of the government. Regardless of one’s political view, the National Assembly is a poorer place without Conservatives like Nick Bourne and Jonathan Morgan, and others such as Helen Mary Jones. Reversing the ban would be good for democracy and bring Wales into line with most other democracies.

The longer-term solution of course, would be to elect all Assembly Members using the same system. An Electoral Reform Society report outlined why a shift to the exclusive use of First Past The Post would damage devolution: giving one party, Labour, a supermajority of 70% of seats on just 40% of the vote.

While the Wales Office should press ahead on reversing the ban, the Wales Office needs to tread carefully on double jobbing. The UK Government is right to look at restricting this practice but maintaining flexibility is key. The Secretary of State for Wales is himself a former AM, the National Assembly is a richer place for having former Members of Parliament sat on its benches; and the same is true of the Commons. A blanket ban on double jobbing would be counterproductive and the Wales Office must explore more flexible restrictions, such as allowing up to 12 months’ overlap after parliamentary and assembly elections.

Lastly, as all parties in the Senedd agree – the power over the National Assembly’s electoral arrangements should be devolved. It’s a decision that only affects the people of Wales: and it’s a decision that should be taken in Wales. To prevent a party or coalition of parties in the Senedd with a simple majority from changing the voting system to suit their own ends, a two-thirds rule of voting AMs should apply to any changes. A referendum could be used as a final mechanism in the event of the National Assembly being unable to agree changes.

Governments rarely receive praise for inaction – but that is precisely the right move on recall.

In today’s Queen’s Speech there was no reference to the pledge to legislate for recall – a system familiar in America where citizens can petition to boot out naughty politicians between elections – or at least that’s how the theory goes.
 
The recall myth tells that it empowers the public. In reality it is a partisan tool wielded by powerful interest groups – to promote sore losers.
 
Recall is not the great leveller. It would give moneyed elites an even greater grip on our politics. No one wants to see the Tax Payers Alliance and Unite spending millions chasing signatures on their latest recall petition.
 
Let’s make sure our Members of Parliament are properly subject to the laws of the land. Let’s make sure MPs found guilty of criminal offenses trigger automatic by-elections. But let’s pass on recall.

It has polluted American politics. And its time its British proponents looked long and hard at the evidence. The Government have passed on recall for now, but any attempts to introduce it via the backdoor must be strongly resisted.

4 good reasons to oppose recall

 
1) It’s a Partisan Tool

 
 Recall has become a conventional partisan campaign tool at every level of government in the US – which has allowed forces on the left and right the chance to rerun political battles after Election Day.

The 2012 Recall initiative against Wisconsin’s Republican Governor Scott Walker was a straight rerun of the 2010 gubernatorial election – and proved the most expensive contest in the state’s history. According to the advocacy group Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, candidates and outside groups spent more than $80 million in the governor’s recall race. This compares to $37.4 million spent on the 2010 gubernatorial election

According to USA Today, $30 million of Walker’s donations came from outside the state with Democratic opponent Tom Barrett receiving $20 million from labour unions.

Tit for tat recall bids in the Wisconsin State Senate in 2011 saw Democratic and Republican opponents attempt to tip the chamber’s political balance in midterm.

Kathleen Dolan, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee commented: “Wisconsin has become in some ways a microcosm of the partisan wars that have been raging nationally.”

2) It rewards Big Money

Recall rewards established groups who are organised enough – and well resourced enough – to deliver petitions.

US academic Dr Elizabeth Garret has expressed her concern over the role of money in recall contests – following the successful recall of California Democratic Governor Gray Davis. She notes that “a group seeking ballot qualification can be certain of success if it is willing to pay enough”

Many US recall drives rely on paid ‘circulators’ to generate signatures. Garret observes that a “sophisticated initiative industry” has grown up in California, including “companies which “offer clients a money back guarantee if they don’t produce enough valid signatures.” In 1999 these companies received an average of $1.50 per signature.
 
 

3) It’s expensive

 The high costs of recall contests have led to unintended consequences.

In 1993 five members of the city council of Covina, Los Angeles County, were recalled because a 6% utility tax. As a result of the revenue being lost from the utility tax the library and fire station came under threat of closure and 42 city employees faced redundancy. The councillors who were elected as replacements then introduced an 8.25% tax.

4) It’s ineffective

 
In almost all cases US recall isn’t based on any allegations of criminal wrongdoing.

Johnstown, Colorado Mayor Mark Romanowski survived a recall election in 2011 that was prompted, in part, by residents’ opposition to a plan to switch from diagonal to parallel parking spaces. Ogden, Kansas, Mayor Jimmy Bonds lost a recall election in 2010 after firing two lifeguards. Opponents said he overstepped his bounds.
 
American states have varying signature thresholds to initiate recall at different levels. The problem is a higher bar rewards money; a lower bar opens the door to frivolous bids.

As polls open in County Council Elections all the talk is on UKIP’s prospects.
 
Our elections were never designed for 3 party politics – let alone 4. Our fickle First Past the Post system has long since ceased to be a reliable gauge of local opinion and UKIP’s rise will throw these problems into stark relief.
 
A UKIP surge letting in Labour or shoring up the Lib Dems? Labour gains against the Lib Dems letting in the Tories? We’ve seen it all before, and we will see it again.
 
Some election experts will no doubt describe these results as ‘predictable’ but that’s only because of our system’s track record of misreading public opinion.

We will have to wait on the results.  The only certainty is that once again the public aren’t going to get the local democracy they voted for.

 
A taste of things to come: The results of vote splitting in previous elections:

 

• Great Yarmouth, 2012: 20% vote for UKIP, they got no seats, but dragged enough votes from the Conservatives to let in Labour.
• Plymouth, 2012: UKIP get 20.3% of the vote but lose their single seat. Labour get 43.9% of the vote, win 12 seats, as opposed to 7 for the Conservatives on 30.9%. Almost no Lib Dem vote (3.2%). Council swings from Conservative to Labour control.
• Brighton, 2007: Greens gained 4.1%, mostly from Labour, leaving the Conservatives one off a majority.
• Liverpool, 2008. Labour get 39% and 16 seats. Lib Dems get 34.6% and 13. Conservatives get 8.5% and 0. Liberals get 6.9% and 1. Had Conservatives and Liberals backed Lib Dems instead would have stopped a Labour majority in that year.
• Westminster, 2010: Conservatives get 42.7% – 48 seats. Labour get 26.3% – 12 seats. Lib Dems 19.2% and Greens 10.5%. Both no seats. Almost no UKIP vote (0.7%). Divided left, homogenous right = Conservative supermajority.

We welcome Labour’s new focus on political disengagement. Now the party needs to show it is prepared to tackle the big issues that are keeping disenchanted voters at home.
 
Eagle covered a lot of ground, about public holidays for Election Day, citizenship education, and how might make voting easier and more accessible.
 
She also asked if Britain should consider incentives, like entering voters into a lottery. Back in 2008 we heard similar ideas floated about free doughnuts on polling day.  We are  clear  that the problems facing our democracy will not be solved by palliatives or headline grabbing initiatives.
 
We were pleased Angela Eagle expressed unease over the quick fix of following Australia down the route of compulsory voting. Compulsion would simply cook the books on plunging turnout figures.
 
Let’s deal with root causes, not hide political disengagement behind the threat of a fine.

The 16 million of us who stayed away from the polls in 2010 offer a stark warning to all parties. We need new ideas to get people back into the habit of voting. We hope this inquiry is radical and that Labour is brave and bold enough to make the changes our democracy needs.
 

The Society recently published its own analysis into Britan’s flatlining democracy. Reviving the health of our Democracy, by Jess Garland, is available for download here…

A vote has just taken place that could have changed British Democracy forever.
 

And it didn’t take place in Westminster but over in Strasburg – as the European Court of Human Rights upheld the ban on paid political broadcast advertising in a knife edge 9-8 vote.

This ruling should be welcome news to all democrats. Lifting the ban would have irrevocably changed the political landscape in Britain, and not for the better.
 

The last Senate race in Pennsylvania cost more ($40 million) than our three main parties spent on the last General Election combined ($31 million). And it didn’t buy a higher quality of debate – just back to back attack ads.
 
We’ve been seriously concerned that lifting the ban would escalate the current ‘arms race’ on political spending and fuel the rise of the British SuperPAC – the interest groups that pour millions into political advertising independently of the US parties at and between elections.
 
The US experience shows the only people who would profit from TV attack ads are moneyed interest groups, TV networks and paid political consultants. The biggest loser would be democratic debate in Britain.
 

For a moment it looked like the UK was sleepwalking towards SuperPAC Politics. There is already a problem with big money in our politics, but lifting this ban would have made it look like small change.

With this year’s county council elections only a few weeks away, we’ve undertaken new analysis that has revealed the parlous state of local democracy in England and Wales.
 
Evidence shows 21 million people are now living in the local government equivalent of ‘One Party States’ – with single parties holding undeserved supermajorities, and other parties incapable of providing viable opposition.
 
One hundred and four councils in England and Wales now have a single party holding in excess of 75% of council seats. In every case this is wholly out of proportion to the support the governing parties enjoy locally – and has given these administrations carte blanche on official business.
 
Of course all three major parties have ‘One Party States’ – which include both urban and rural authorities. 

ERS has defined ‘One Party States’ as authorities with a single party holding over 75% of council seats, leaving opposition incapable of providing any checks of council decision making. With a 2/3 alone majority parties have the ability to overturn standing orders, and change the way the councils are run. We’ve allowed the possibility of some party rebels offering pseudo-opposition to the one party state in their area.
 
Any decent democracy requires a viable opposition. But the 21 million living in local One Party States don’t have that luxury. These authorities enjoy power without real accountability – and council taxpayers deserve better.
 
We can’t rely on governing parties to keep themselves in check. Our councils need a critical mass of opposition for basic scrutiny to work – it’s what the public keep voting for. But our broken voting system is handing out fake supermajorities to parties out of all proportion to their real support.
 

The coming elections will barely make a dent on these One Party States, and it’s why they breed complacency. When councillors in Slough and Tunbridge Wells voted themselves pay increases they knew they were untouchable.
 
Quite simply no councillor and no council should be beyond the reach of voters.
 
It’s time for England and Wales to follow the lead of Scotland, and abandon First Past the Post for a fair voting system in local elections. Since they made the move in 2007 most of Scotland is still run by single party governments – but all councils now have vibrant opposition.
 
Fair votes have made Scotland’s One Party fiefdoms a thing of the past. There are lessons here for anyone who believes local democracy in England and Wales should be better.
 
It’s time to make the change: the solution is right in front of us. Fair votes in Scotland has worked. The same single transferable vote (STV) system the Scots use could offer Welsh and English voters so much more.
 
If you’ve been failed by local democracy we want to hear from you. Visit our Rotten Boroughs page and tell us your story…
 

The One Party States of England and Wales
 
Full data by region and party is available for download here…
 
The Lib Dems One Party States

Labour’s One Party States

Conservative One Party States