Gordon Brown to pledge pre-election legislation on voting reform | Politics | The Guardian .
Gordon Brown will today announce to ensure those elected to parliament in future will arrive with the support of over 50% of voters.
News of a referendum on electoral reform emerged along with action to clamp down on MPs and peers sitting in parliament who do not pay tax in the UK. The government is poised to pass legislation banning the practice and all MPs and Lords last night received a letter informing them that they will have three months to comply once the bill receives royal assent.
Brown's decision to push through legislation this side of an election will surprise electoral reform campaigners who had thought the measure had been pushed down the government's agenda. It will set up a radical dividing line between Labour and the Conservatives.
Two wins (OK, a part win on electoral reform) in a day.
What's the third going to be?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Shame it doesn’t cover all peers of the realm, since I doubt if Rothermere sits in the Lords now. But anyone receiving such a high honour should be duty bound to respect the country which gave it. Although much better still, abolish the whole damn system.
Also need a law that no govt contract is awarded to businesses which do not pay UK tax. (Why don’t they just do it!)
The problem is that Alternative Vote still isn’t a proportional system. I’m not sure how I’d vote in a referendum on AV. In some ways it’s worse than First Past the Post. However, the fact that voting reform is being discussed at all – even if the proposed system isn’t quite right – is a big step forward.
Also it’s very clever politics as it casts the Tories in the role of reactionaries – people who want to preserve an unfair, biased voting system at all costs. Especially odd, given that it’s biased against THEM! With only a 7 point Tory lead on one poll today, there is a chance that Brown could pull off the electoral upset of the century. Who’d have thought it?
Chickens etc Howard
But we can hope!
“Brown’s decision to push through legislation this side of an election will surprise electoral reform campaigners”
Not least old Roy Jenkins who said when he concluded his report on electoral voting that the only merit of AV was that the change was so minor it wouldn’t need a referendum. And yet we were denied a promised referendum on the European constitution because that was deemed a “minor” change. One thing you can never accuse Gordo of is being honest.
AV is an awful system, because it makes people start with the question “who do you least want to get in”? So you end up with most people putting “lunatic” parties ahead of mainstream ones, because most Tories would prefer the “Cheese on Toast” party in preference to Labour (and vice versa).
The real question is surely whether we want an electoral system that is more proportional: and AV doesn’t deliver that.
@mad foetus
Agreed
AV is the weakest of the alternatives
STV for me
But the idea we could change is vital
“clamp down on MPs and peers sitting in parliament who do not pay tax in the UK. ”
The Guardian piece is very confused on this point. At one point they talk about non-doms, at another about “who do not pay tax in the UK”. The two are very different things. So which is it?
Tim
The aim is to deem all MPs and peers to be resident, ordinarily resident and domiciled in the UK
That means they will be taxed on their worldwide income
I’d extend that to all elected representatives – i.e. all assembly members and all councillors as well
Richard
I think aso we need to look at the party system though. In particular, MPs should be more independent and not so subject to the party whip. Being a yes-man (or woman) should not be a requirement for political promotion.
In fact, the same analogy applies equally to banks and to politicians: the people sitting around the table making decisions should come from a broad background and bring different values and approaches to the tale. A room full of either Milibands or Old Etonians (I don’t know which is worse) should not be the result of any democratic process.
MF
You’re right
The idea of a being a whipped MP is deeply unattractive
Richard
@Tim Worstall
The British public at large, and the Guardianista left in particular (including our host on this blog), does not understand difference between residence and domicile, and their tax implication.
This makes it easier to bash “non-doms” in the pursuit of cheap political gains.
But I would agree with those on both the right and the left who argue that non-doms should not be elected to Congress
Edouard
Strange comment to make about my competence
I’ve been a tax accountant for longer than I care to remember and I really don’t think those with whom I engage in the tax profession would challenge my understanding on this issue
Certainly HMRC do not
I think you may be guilty here, as so often, of profoundly wishful thinking
Richard
@Richard Murphy
There was enough confusion and mixing-up in the recent Compass report you co-authored to make me rather doubt that you and your co-authors have a full command of the issues.
But ~I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt.