Voters reject Clegg ... and throw out electoral reform

In the referendum on electoral reform voter turn-out was less than half (60% didn't vote) and of those who bothered to vote, only 32% said they wanted to change the system. 

Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat leader, compromised everything (e.g. the tripling of tuition fees, the scrapping of EMA, NHS reform etc) in order to secure a vote on electoral reform, but then failed to win the vote!  

And the irony of it all is ... Nick Clegg, by reneging on all of his promises and putting aside his moral compass (choosing power over principle), is the actual person who set doubt/alarm bells off in people's heads (e.g. about coalitions) and sounded the death nell for electoral reform.

Many will not have bothered to listen to the arguments, and simply wanted to deliver a protest vote against him (nb which is why the Yes campaigners tried desperately to stop him getting involved in their campaign)!

This would also explain why the Liberal Democrats suffered a rout in the Local Elections, whilst their coalition partners actually gained seats (nb even though their partners are the main party responsible for introducing the cuts)!

Nick Clegg is deliberately keeping his head down, but did say "When you have such a overwhelmingly clear answer you just have to accept it and move on. This is a bitter blow for all those people who believe in the need for political reform, but the answer is clear and the wider job of the government, and the Liberal Democrats in government will continue, to repair the economy, to restore prosperity and jobs and a sense of optimism in the country. That is the job we started and we will see it though. We will dust ourselves off and move on."

And the issue with this? ... well for many it was not a case of rejecting electoral reform at all, but the best way of voters showing they reject him (given it was Nick Clegg's key demand in coalition)! ... and to try to maintain power ... he's predictably saying the public rejected electoral reform (i.e. not him) ... and he will continue in power doing what he's been doing!  

IMHO if the Liberal Democrats could get rid of him they almost certainly would (nb calls are there already from the grass-roots), but because of the massive damage that he's done to his party, they are now in such a state they could actually potentially implode.  Looks like they are just going to try and hang on and hope for the best ... for now. 

Meanwhile, Nick Clegg will still no doubt be contemplating his lifeboat (a safe Tory seat in the next election), particularly as the Conservative vote went up! But he will sit between two stools ... wanting to please an increasingly rebellious party (by showing he's prepared to stand up for people), and wanting to please Cameron and the Conservative party (to ensure he has a free passage to one of their safe seats)!

Trust, honour, respect ... Here I do think the electorate have given their verdict on Nick Clegg. However, apathy ruled the day and ignorance helped to deliver a protest vote but not electoral reform (nb by voting for electoral reform, but not voting for the Liberal Democrats in the local elections, voters could still have delivered a protest vote!) ... so Poweromics will continue unabated.

Whilst Ignoromics prevails, Poweromics will flourish ...

A small step in the right direction

Following the General Election, and five days of discussions, the Liberal Democrats have negotiated a referendum on electoral reform, as part of a coalition of the type not seen for over 70 years.   Whilst not a proposal to move to full proportional representation, the alternative vote (AV) is at least one step forward towards 21st century democracy.  

Most countries around the world already have such systems, and their political parties are quite used to working together as part of a coalition.  Parties have to work together and compromise, and make sure key policies are sufficiently scrutinised and prioritised, rather than simply 'nodded through' or 'pushed through' by party whips.  The effect of this is already starting to appear, with compromises already on the make up of Government (e.g. Shared cabinet), electoral reform (e.g. AV referendum) and economic policy (e.g. with lower rate tax thresholds taking priority over providing inheritance tax breaks for the rich) for the greater good. Rather than a 'hung parliament' in my humble opinion a better description is a 'balanced parliament'.

A new system based on fundamental 'values' such as fairness, responsibility and respect is also a good start, but there is a great deal to do and far more will be needed.  The challenge (particularly for the Liberal Democrats) is to now show how effective a UK coalition Government can be, showing how 21st century politics could work for the benefit of the people, as if they do not electoral reform will fall at the first hurdle - i.e. in the referendum itself.  One thing is certain, the Tory dominated press will take any opportunity to attack any change to the voting system. The Conservatives did not want to see a referendum on the voting system (as the 'first passed the post' system serves their party, and the labour party, so well), and will I am sure argue strongly against it when it comes to the referendum.  The press tried hard to push for a majority Conservative Government so they could avoid such concessions, but even with the clear headwind provided by an unfair voting system, they did not succeed.  

The voice of the people was still sufficiently large to demand compromise and coalition - and 21st Century democracy. There's a long long way to go ... and many challenges ahead ... hence we wish our new leaders, and everyone in the UK, every success in bringing this about ... and in successfully turning our economy around.

Can the UK have a 21st Century Democracy please

The lack of trust of MP's, and in Parliament, is going to be extremely difficult to turn around - in fact it will be almost impossible without a root and branch reform of the electoral system. 

The internet is creating a 21st century platform for democracy - which a number of Government's are starting to use and benefit from.  In previous posts the application of Poweromics* has been often raised and the lack of effective democracy** in the UK too ... and the time for change is now ...

and it's not just me saying it ... Ministers within the Government are now saying it too (e.g. Alan Johnson, Health Secretary and Michael Wills, Justice Minister). They are all starting to realise they will have to fundamentally change how Parliament (as well as political parties) work to regain the trust of people, and to properly represent people ... so perhaps the expenses fiasco is a blessing in disguise ...

The political parties know that previous supporters are less likely to support them now, either with their votes or with their cash (see the PCS union comments previously), with many parties now wanting the tax-payer to fund them too!  

If they have any hope of persuading us this is the right thing to do, we will need to see much more transparency and have much more of a say as to what is allowed and how things are done ... so we are properly represented ... and not opening up another gravy train for 'politicians' and/or 'political parties' to exploit and profit from ...

* Poweromics = People using position and power for their own personal gain, based on poor moral values, self interest and greed. 

**  We only get a say/vote once every five years in a general election, and even then only a small minority of votes actually make a difference as to which of the two main parties gets in Government ... the only votes that effectively 'count' are fringe votes in marginal constituencies (2-3% of the total) - and that's why the two main parties keep changing the voting boundaries too! 21st Century democracy? ... and yet we often hear politicians quote our 'democracy' as an example for others to follow!

Posted on the Panorama blog Is Your MP Working for you?  No 1 (leanomist)