http://www.nickclegg.com/2009/12/tuition-fees

In light of this I have made the letter which was available via that link available at:

http://rtaylor.co.uk/files/nick_clegg_tuition_fees.html

I could not find the above linked letter on Nick Clegg’s new site.

It appears that Nick Clegg’s website has been moved to the proprietary “etelligent” system from Being Digital which runs on Microsoft’s ASP technology; Nick Clegg’s previous site ran on open source Wordpress and PHP.

Huge numbers of external links from those discussing Lib Dem policy, such as the one on this thread, have been broken by the change as have many links from within the family of Lib Dem websites.

It appears incompetence with web-technology is endemic among party leaders in the UK. David Cameron revamped his “Webcameron” website a couple of years ago; he too broke many web-links and deleted enormous amounts of valuable content, which could have been used to hold him to account for his future actions, from the web.

My proposal is that in some cases instead of the Government of the day saying we think it would be useful to have a doctor or two scrutinising legislation in the second house and picking one they’ve seen on the television; I’m proposing letting the members of that profession pick their own representative. I think there is room for improvement, and increased democratisation (making use of technology), without destabilising upheaval.

If Cambridge elected an MP who’d refuse to take the oath of allegiance but would still insist on taking up their seat that would be a great start. None of the current candidates are proposing to do that.

David - I am proposing taking the special treatment away from particular churches. I don’t think the church or royals ought play any special role in Government, though the Church’s voice ought be heard like any other group’s.

“It seems to me that we may abolish one odd institution and replace it with something even odder.”

This constant itch for constitutional meddling is just utopian fantasy, whoever is pushing it.

I’ve not decided what I’ll do in relation to the upcoming elections yet.

I would like to see elections within bodies to determine who would take up their seats. ie. doctors, churches, members of political parties, students and others would elect (perhaps via a multi-choice STV election) who represents them in the Lords.

We already have Greens, Doctors, Religious Leaders etc. in the Lords; my proposal is to require them to be elected by the geographically disparate “constituencies” they represent rather than appointed by politicians.

I don’t think this ought be the only route of entry to the Lords. I think it is also of value to have ex. ministers, MPs, military leaders and perhaps even ex. civil servants in the second house.

While I think hereditary Lords and Bishops ought be removed straight away I think other changes could be more gradual eg. by affecting new entrants only. I don’t think we should be scared of looking forward and creating new structures and arrangements which we can now envisage as a result of technological advances. If web-based groups took up the opportunities presented by my proposals that would be fantastic; but clearly safeguards ensuring the integrity of “membership lists” (Electoral roll matching) would be required.

I think it’s important the House of Lords:

*contains experienced people who are able to do the job of improving legislation well.

*doesn’t threaten the supremacy of the House of Commons. ie. isn’t elected in the same way.

*is democratic (but not 100% directly elected;)

*provides some degree of continuity when compared to a more responsive commons.

How can you know that there aren’t better candidates who are from another background if you haven’t been able to include them on the short-list? The other ‘minorities/majorities’ don’t get a look in. I’m not disputing that some ethnic minorities/sexes picked in a positive discrimination list will do a good job but if you don’t have a level playing field to pick from - then it isn’t fair.

The best person should win no matter what their background/personality and perhaps more importantly a constituency should be able to pick the person best suited to their area to represent them no matter who they are, what their background is and the colour of their skin.

So how would you accomplish that without using large multi-member constituencies or requiring every voter to vote for as many candidates as there are members of the Lords?

Certainly very few people join political parties. The Lib Dems have perhaps 250 in Cambridge, Labour has maybe 500 (and our numbers have held up much better here than in some much safer constituencies) and if the Tories have a hundred I’d be amazed.

Yet organised political parties predominate. So why aren’t we swamped with independent councillors? Because they have no organisational structures. They have to recruit leaflet deliverers, sort out the rental of office space, fundraise, research, deal with casework and all the other tribulations of running for office and governing.

Party candidates, on the other hand, have an organisation dealing with this. A small one, certainly, but since the work is shared and since much of it rests on ancient foundations, nevertheless a sufficient one.

And even if an independent does succeed, maintaining his or her support network is difficult. People who support independents tend to be less loyal through thick and thin than those belonging to the Labour Party. Just look at any insurgent political force and see where it is three years later. Either the activists have had a massive argument and split up, or the force has become institutionalised and is essentially just another party.

Parties are just the best way to maintain a support system for electoral candidates and elected representatives.

P.S. As far as the issue of women/ethnic minority candidates goes, I find Lucy Price’s comment on positive discrimination deeply disingenuous. It’s an old canard, and there’s no evidence that it does “result[] in appointments of candidates with lesser qualifications/skills just because they tick a box”. Being an elected representative is not rocket science and there are no shortage of women and ethnic minorities who could do it as well (or as badly) as the current incumbents.

I disagree with positive discrimination if it results in appointments of candidates with lesser qualifications/skills just because they tick a box.

The Liberal Democrat electoral reform policy document states they will bring in a system which will “ensure better representation of ethnic minorities and women in Parliament”.
They don’t explain the mechanism. Only Rosenstiel, not the policy document, says that mechanism isn’t party lists.

I think the temptation to delay polls is even greater when there isn’t a large number of electors left disenfranchised. In my local example, had Mr Levy been the only representative for a ward I expect the Lib Dem’s motion to exempt him from the rules on being thrown out for inactivity would have met opposition.

I disagree with the suggestion the party system is not going away; support for it is falling away, fewer people are joining parties. That those who are getting elected still tend to be members of parties despite this is a problem, not a reason to keep them.

As for supporters of those with minority opinions, with sufficient, though geographically disperse, support to warrant a voice in Parliament - I agree this is a downside of the current system. I’d solve this with reform of the House of Lords; we have a couple of Green Lords already - if they were elected by party members that would give them a electoral mandate.

All of this is not to say that I disagree with the constituency system - certainly the European Parliament system is a travesty, and I’d much rather return to the pre-1999 system of large constituencies, with perhaps a small top-up list element if necessary.

Certainly a by-election can be held quickly, but it does not necessarily follow that it always will. In national politics there is always a temptation to delay them when the governing party polls badly or has a very small majority.

I’m not sure how it’s ‘wasteful and confusing’ for multiple MPs to push the same complaint. That just seems like effective lobbying - unified cross-party complaints from a greater number of individuals is both more newsworthy (increasing the attention paid to it) and more ominous (rendering the chances of a swift response greater). Not that it would be a unified complaint in many cases, of course. Some MPs would agree with the complaint and not follow it up, some would disagree and not follow it up. That seems like representative democracy in action to me.

As for the wish “to see MPs focus more on scrutinising government and ensuring we’ve got good laws and less on acting as a one-stop-shop for all manner of issues”, I think that’s a little utopian. Most voters are not wildly interested in scrutinising government, nor do they necessarily have strong policy preferences. Constituent work both increases public participation by giving people issues they can relate to and helps to build a base of support by showing concrete achievements.

Combine that with a strong party system, and there’s no way you’ll get many MPs being anything other than party line voters who do constituent work on the side. And much as you might wish otherwise, a strong party system isn’t going away, because almost everybody who is heavily involved in day-to-day politics is a member of an organised political party and makes use of the organisational advantages that provides them.

Once again, I’m not actually in favour of multi-member constituencies, but I think you’re ignoring some of their benefits and instead engaging in ‘the sky is falling’ type histrionics that are almost as silly as your worries about the Lib Dems filling their top-up lists with women and ethnic minorities.

http://ja-jp.facebook.com/event.php?eid=270559328603&index=1

The length of this thread is not an indication of how passionately I oppose multi-member constituencies. It is more a measure of how much effort it took me to get to grips, to some extent, with what the Lib Dems are proposing (others’ mileage may vary). I have already explained why I think the Lib Dem proposals on this are important at the moment.

I do oppose very large constituencies with large numbers of representatives. If Cambridge’s constituency was doubled in size (encompassing the geographical reality of the city) and elections held by STV that wouldn’t in my view be total travesty. If we lost the connection between a reasonable geographical constituency and MPs - as I think we have in the European Parliament - or would under Lib Dem plans then I do think that would be immensely damaging.

Edward wrote:

“if one has more MPs, one can lobby them all and thus their complaints will have greater weight”

I don’t think that is the case at all. Multiple members add confusion and removes a clear line of responsibility and accountability; they certainly don’t add weight to a constituent’s views. Multi-member constituencies might result in MPs losing their role as advocates for constituents who find themselves being treated badly by arms of the state; as MPs may find it impossible, particularly given the importance of confidentiality, to divvy up the casework (and having all 5, or 20 of them pursue “complaints” in parallel as suggested would be massively wasteful and confusing).

I would like to see MPs focus more on scrutinising government and ensuring we’ve got good laws and less on acting as a one-stop-shop for all manner of issues, but there is a key role of advocate of last resort which needs to be maintained as a key part of the balance of power between the citizen and state.

As for when an MP dies or becomes ill - a by-election can be held remarkably quickly. This is much more preferable to what I’ve personally experienced in my local council ward of Arbury where Cllr Levy, due to illness, did no council work for many many months and instead of putting his seat up for election (even when other elections were being held) Cambridge Lib Dems passed a special motion at the City Council to allow him to stay on as a councillor despite not attending for longer than the period which ought result in automatic loss of office.

They actually have certain advantages - if one has more MPs, one can lobby them all and thus their complaints will have greater weight, there’s less of a problem when an MP dies or resigns with constituency business being dealt with and holders of minority opinions are more likely to have somebody who agrees with them.

I don’t favour multi-member constituencies, but this is a storm in a teacup.

Also, Rosenstiel is mad if he thinks single-member constituencies will never happen. They would on Orkney and Shetland, and probably the Isle of Man if the Lib Dems consolidate that.

He told me :

*During the private Lib Dem selection meeting he had asked Julian Huppert about the Lib Dem’s electoral reform proposals and was impressed by his response.

*The Liberal Democrats are likely to use Counties as constituencies initially. Under such a plan we would have six MPs for Cambridgeshire.

*In the longer term he thought the Lib Dems would seek to make constituencies locally appriopriate; but not to the extent of allowing one member constituencies even in special cases such as islands.

Update: 26/1/10: I omitted a mention of another benefit that Colin Rosenstiel mentioned - that people are free to choose between different factions of the same party in a STV vote; he used the Northern Ireland Assembly as an example of where this is important, and works. In Cambridgeshire this would let people choose between a Cambridge Liberal Democrat and a Huntingdon Liberal Democrat or one from elsewhere in the County. This might have an interesting consequence of giving those who’re not so anti-car and anti- significant A14 improvements being able to vote for a Lib Dem. It would also highlight how disparate views within the Lib Dem party are.

Richard - surely this would give better chances to vote for “person not party” and for individuals who want to seek cross-party or single issue support to stand with a chance of election? As an apparent “independent”, I am not clear why are you so opposed to it (other than because it is put forward by the Liberal Democrats).

Do you accept that most of your descriptions of Lib Dem policy in this thread have been wrong? And are you going to answer my question in 40.?

“MPs would still represent a constituency” is looking like a typical Lib Dem election time statement; accurate enough so that it can’t be challenged but highly misleading.

STV in single member seats is not the same system and is referred to as the Alternative Vote to distinguish it.

It is clearly accepted that the introduction of STV would require a general redrawing of constituency boundaries. That is why it has always been accepted as not a change that can be made instantly. The Scottish local government experience is helpful there because it demonstrated that the process could be carried out rather more quickly than previously anticipated.

As far as the party has been able to put its policy into the practice the results are to be seen in Scottish local government. The present Liberal Democrat administration at the Guildhall also introduced STV for the election of City tenants’ representatives. This was a case where the party was not constrained by negotiations with coalition partners.

There are no hard and fast rules on STV constituency sizes, even in advice from the Electoral Reform Society.

What they are proposing according to Rosenstiel is STV within each constituency then hoping that will result in proportional representation.

STV results in approximate Proportional Representation in Ireland (and in Scottish Local Elections) only as a result of them having multi-seat constituencies with all seats elected at the same time.

While the Lib Dems are proposing to reduce the number of MPs thereby increasing the size of constituencies I cannot see any proposal to make constituencies even bigger (essentially turn them into regions) by combining constituencies to create multi-member seats.

One way the Lib Dem proposal could make sense is if they are also proposing creating larger, multi-member constituencies. This would make their policy statement: “MPs would still represent a constituency” rather misleading if that constituency became a region of half a million people.

There is something missing from the Lib Dem policy; it’s either or both of:

*What they’re proposing won’t have the effect they claim it will.

*They’re proposing multi-member constituencies and not saying so clearly.

Colin Rosenstiel’s suggestion that they’re still working on a policy derived from his 1998 speech suggests they’re not going for a list based system. Cllr Rosenstiel’s speech was as anti party-lists as I am.

That’s where you are wrong. For all its limitations from smaller than optimal constituencies, that’s exactly what STV has delivered in the Irish Republic since the foundation of the Free State.

The party policy has not, as far as I know, been further developed from the conference resolution which I myself proposed in 1994. You will find my proposing speech on my web site. I’m not sure the resolution is on the web.

I didn’t suggest that Julian is “blindly” in favour of all Lib Dem policies, but it’s surely not an unreasonable position that, as a Lib Dem candidate, he can be assumed to be in favour of Lib Dem policies unless there’s some evidence to the contrary.

I’m sorry to be disagreeing with you so thoroughly this afternoon - I do think this blog has something useful to contribute, when it isn’t devoted to baseless attacks on Lib Dem policy and candidates. So let me ask you a question for a change: Are you planning to stand in the local elections this year?