The concept was pretty simple. Anyone could submit ideas for democratic renewal and then anyone could vote on them. The top five ideas would become a pledge which would form the basis of a campaign leading up to the next election. The campaign is asking for people to sign up to the pledge to show mass support for the initiatives.
So why is Mouse disappointed with the outcome of all this. Well, for a number of reasons.
The ideas generated are either odd or the tip of a complex constitutional issue. None are new or creative. PR and a written constitution are constitutionalists hobby horses but are not, in fact, in demand from anyone else. Whilst the Power 2010 campaign can claim over 100,000 votes, this is still pretty small considering it had huge press in the political world. Just compare it with the X-Factor to see where the general public's heart really is. And 100,000 people did not vote for PR, although as the top choice it did receive more votes than anything else. However, to give another sense of scale is that David Cameron's direct democracy ideas include the idea that a petition of 100,000 would trigger a referendum. This effort would have failed.
As for scrapping the ID card and rolling back the database state, Mouse thinks that is all well and good but nothing to do with democratic renewal. If anything this demonstrates the very problem of democracy. People vote for odd things.
Replacing the House of Lords with an elected chamber seems sensible enough, as Labour only got half way through Lords reform, but has much wider implications. It would establish two competing chambers with equal democratic mandates in Parliament.
English votes for English laws sounds fair again, but just points to the oddities of having regional government in different degrees for different regions. It is, once again a much wider question.
So the outcome is not a simple set of changes which could be made, but the start of a much wider debate about how these things could be taken forward.
The other main reason is that they seem to be trying hoodwink us into believing that more people support this than really do. The first trick is the 100,000 claim, which refers to the overall number of votes, rather than those who voted for these five initiatives. The second is that they are now asking people to sign the pledge, but they are asking you to sign it even if you do not agree with all the ideas. What kind of madness is that? How can you sign a pledge for something you don't agree with? You are given the option to say when you sign up which bits you agree with, but Mouse is pretty confident that they will use the total number of signatures at the end. They are already giving a running commentary.
So all in all, Mouse is pretty disappointed. We don't have a set of ideas which can be implemented by an incoming government, they are either nothing to do with democratic renewal or well worn thorny debates and the pet topics of constitutional geeks.
Mouse's view is that there is only one thing which will renew our democracy. A general election. The reason we are unhappy with our political leaders is because they have become tired and complacent in office. A general election is the solution.
This cold-water-pouring assessment misses the key points completely. 1. On its own terms, the general election will be dominated by the same-old same-old big parties with big money. 2. Longer-term pressure for real change from below (rather than cynicism from the sidelines reinforcing inertia at the top) is what's needed, and Power 2010 is helping to galvanise this. 3. 100k+ is a good start... but it is a start, not the finish line. 4. Local teams are now taking the pledge into constituencies to get tens of thousands of people to engage with candidates *and* with a wider popular change process. Both together. 5. The coalition Power 2010 is building is much larger and more capable than the existing specialist lobby groups have been. 6. The five core pledge items include key constitutional reforms (which are no less vital just because they aren't 'new'). 7. Many of the other 24 ideas are indeed innovative... and still available for putting together the post-election process - which will be very important, not least if there is something approaching a hung parliament. 8. Fresh ideas on strategy would be welcome, since Power 2010 is about building conversation and cooperation. 9. Is not all this much preferable to a "big fat" dose of negativity... which is probably available for a penny a kilo in any saloon, but changes nothing (for good)? Nibble at the system, don't just leave mouse-droppings, I say! x
ReplyDeleteSimon
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughts. But just to clarify, I did not 'miss' these points. I just don't agree.
Mouse
We can happily agree that you don't think you've missed anything, dear anony-mouse :) Meanwhile, the Power 2010 teams have been on the road today, getting a great response, and people are busy getting involved with the pledge http://www.power2010.org.uk/page/s/powerpledge Squeak, squeak! x
ReplyDeleteSimon
ReplyDeleteWould you like to declare an interest? Ekklesia is a Power2010 partner, no?
Mouse
Yes, happily - we have been involved in promoting positive public and faith engagement in a renewed politics for some time, and have been involved in Power 2010 from the beginning - indeed, before that, when it was the Real Change initiative. (Hardly a secret, and not something that prevents a critical perspective... if that's what you were seeking to imply?) Standing anonymously aloof and dismissing things as "a big fat disappointment" is also an "interest", btw. Just not a very constructive one, many would think. Squeak, squeak! x
ReplyDeleteHi Church Mouse,
ReplyDeleteJust in response to your substantive points about the process, you say that the campaign will mislead people and use the overall support for the Pledge to indicate support for particular reforms. That's not the case. Pam Giddy, director of Power2010, has dealt with the concern you raise here and concerns raised elsewhere on the campaign blog:
http://www.power2010.org.uk/blog/entry/taking-forward-the-power-pledge/
This part in particular is relvant:
"Several people have asked whether overall support for the Pledge will be used to lobby for particular reforms (potentially using people's support for the Pledge to lobby for reforms they have explicitly opted out of). It won't. We recognise that support for the Pledge doesn't automatically translate to support for any single idea in it. If 50,000 people sign the Pledge we cannot say that this means 50,000 have signed up in support of a proportional voting system. That would be wrong and we will never do it. What we can point to is the number of people backing a majority of the ideas on the Pledge - and joining our call for a reforming Parliament."
I hope that reassures you, even if you're unsure about the reforms the public have chosen!
Guy, Power2010
I must take issue with the notion that scrapping ID cards is an "odd thing".
ReplyDeleteThe way that the scheme is proposed in the UK would fundamentally and irrevocably change the relationship between state and citizen.
I can think of few schemes that are as anti-democratic as this ill-conceived attempt at mass population control and cradle to grave state surveillance.
David
(from LeaveThemKidsAlone, a parental campaign which is fiercely opposed to the mass-fingerprinting of children in UK schools without parents' consent: a giant softening-up exercise for ID cards, some say)
Simon - helpful comments, however, I note that today Power2010 called for the Bishops to back their call for an elected upper chamber and used the 100,000 number. Why did they not say how many actually voted for that specific reform? This is the kind of thing I'm concerned about.
ReplyDeleteThey state: "This despite the fact that most major polls since the 70s find the public in favour of democratising the upper chamber, a preference now expressed as a clear and unequivocal demand with a fully elected second chamber third of 100,000 votes in POWER2010's process to find the people's priorities for reform."
David_CAMFA
I agree that scapping ID cards is not an 'odd thing'. In fact, it is something I support. What is odd is the idea that this is a central plank in a program of democratic renewal. It is about civil liberties, not democracy.