The government needs to move swiftly on modernising Britain’s ‘dangerously outdated’ electoral rules, according to a key Lords committee.

The Lords Select Committee on Democracy and Digital Technologies’ new report finds that: “Electoral law must be completely updated for an online age. There have been no major changes to electoral law since the invention of social media and the rise of online political advertising.”

The findings backs up the long-standing calls of the ERS, the APPG on Electoral Campaign Transparency, the Electoral Commission, Law Commission, FairVote and many more.

Committee chair Lord Puttnam states: “If allowed to flourish these counterfeit truths will result in the collapse of public trust, and without trust democracy as we know it will simply decline into irrelevance.”

He’s right. Despite countless regulators, campaigners and committees calling for action, there has been woeful inaction from the government when it comes to updating Britain’s analogue-age campaign rules.

The government has promised to implement transparency for online political ads. This should be implemented before next year’s major round of elections. ‘In due course’ – the government’s non-existent timeline – is not good enough.

When it comes to misinformation and transparency, we cannot leave the rules up to the tech giants. These unaccountable firms cannot be the gatekeepers of our political debate. A clear code of practice for online transparency must be the first step to cleaning up their act and safeguarding our election debates.

The Committee have raised real concerns that tackling misinformation will be left out of the Online Harms Bill. This would be an unbelievable step back, given the harm we have seen misinformation cause during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The ERS recently contributed to the All Party Political Group on Electoral Campaigning Transparency’s Defending our Democracy in the Digital Age study. This ground-breaking report set out 20 recommendations on how to protect UK elections and referendums from ‘dirty money and dodgy data misuse’.

And just last October, the ERS also launched the Loophole List of gaps in our electoral law that are putting democracy at risk. Some of the loopholes mean that donors based in foreign tax havens, or operating through untraceable shell companies can pump in money to influence our political parties. Others allow for unscrupulous individuals to pay for anonymous ‘dark’ ads on line, or pump out disinformation during election periods to sway the result.

All this matters because trust in democracy is at rock bottom. An Edelman Trust Barometer poll in January showed that three in five people had lost faith in democracy. The study polled 34,000 respondents in 28 markets and found that only Russia ranked below the UK on public trust.

The failure to update Britain’s electoral laws since the advent of social media has contributed to another worrying fact: voters say politicians are most responsible for spreading misinformation. It’s time to take on the challenges of fake news and undue electoral interference.

Our mess of electoral law must be comprehensively modernised. But this must not stop vital measures being put in place in the interim – including, at the very least, online ‘imprints’ and strengthening fines for electoral offences. The current fines are the ‘cost of doing business’ for bad actors.

Our decades’ old electoral law is putting free elections under threat. There are clear points of consensus on the way forward. The government must get to grips with this now before it’s too late. It’s time to rein in the wild west online.”

Read the ERS’ Reining in the Wild West report for more information on how to bring our electoral law into the digital age.

Sign our petition for 21st Century campaigning rules

In a perhaps unsurprising move, ministers have denied that Westminster is broken.

Speaking in the House of Lords on Tuesday, Green peer Baroness Natalie Bennett raised the idea that countries with more cooperative, democratic political systems have higher levels of public trust in politics – and in their governments’ handling of the current pandemic.

Cabinet Office minister Lord True replied: “I strongly disagree with the noble Baroness in her view that the people of this country distrust our governance”.

One can disagree, but the facts speak volumes. An Edelman Trust Barometer poll in January showed that three in five people had lost faith in democracy. The study polled 34,000 respondents in 28 markets and found that only Russia ranked below the UK on public trust.

Polling for the Reuters Institute just this month showed that trust in the UK government as a source of information about coronavirus has declined substantially since April.

And the failure to update Britain’s electoral laws since the advent of social media has contributed to a worrying fact: voters say politicians are most responsible for spreading misinformation.

A briefing by independent fact-checkers Full Fact also showed that politicians are one of the least trusted professions in the UK, with about 19% of people saying they trust them to tell the truth. Trust in government ministers is similar, with just 22% trusting them.

While most politicians work very hard for voters, Westminster as a whole feels distant in every sense of the word.

An ERS report last year revealed that almost half (47%) of people do not feel at all or very represented by parties at Westminster, and that two-thirds (67%) feel like they have no or very few opportunities to inform and influence decisions made by their elected representatives.

There is, we noted, “a feeling that politics happens somewhere else, not in the communities in which people live. For many, Westminster feels remote.”

This was backed up by other research. In their 2019 Audit of Political Engagement, the Hansard Society found that 47 percent of people feel that they have no influence over national decision- making. This is a new high for the Audit series which is in its 16th year. Those who ‘strongly disagree’ that political involvement can change the way the UK is run was up to 18 percent – another high for this long running audit.

Beneath the surface, the strongest indicators of powerlessness and disengagement are intensifying. That’s perhaps no surprise when a whopping 68% of votes failed to contribute to the local result in the 2019 election. And we still have a fully unelected second chamber, packed with hereditary peers and party appointees.

It would be great if the public had faith in Britain’s systems of governance. Why? Distrust is deeply corrosive, dis-empowering. It can lead to polarisation and deepened divisions. When the ballot box isn’t working, people look elsewhere.

Sadly, Lord True is off the mark when it comes to trust in politics. But there’s plenty that can be done to fix the warped Westminster set-up – and build a democracy fit for the future.

Pictured: Cabinet Office minister Lord True in a 2018 debate.

A new report delves into how Parliament has responded to the current pandemic – and holds up a mirror to Westminster’s centralised set-up.  

Fair Vote UK’s report Democracy in the Age of Pandemic sets out the good and bad ways that Westminster has adapted to the coronavirus crisis – drawing on evidence from across the world. We were pleased to contribute the report at the ERS, as one of the key commentators on the ‘virtual Parliament’ proceedings.

It’s a timely publication, particularly given growing concerns over attempts to shut down remote participation for MPs.

The report stems from consultation with over 80 organisations, experts, and citizens. Early drafts of the report in April were full of praise for Parliament’s response to the pandemic – the shift to fully remote voting, virtual select committees and video contributions. Though it had been slow off the mark, Westminster’s hybrid solution – part social distancing, part digitisation – had been a ‘sensible and welcome mix of familiarity and innovation’.

Fast forward a couple of months, and we’ve witnessed the farcical scenes of MPs queuing for 40 minutes per vote (the ‘Commons conga line’), while shielding and vulnerable MPs have been disenfranchised – ‘jeopardising the good progress that had been made’, FairVote point out.

The ERS and FairVote agree that: “Abandoning the virtual Parliament was an irresponsible decision that should be reversed.” A recent poll by YouGov showed that 76% of British people think MPs should be allowed to continue working remotely.

So why was the government so keen to shut this down? And how did they manage it?

One reason is the centralised nature of democracy in the UK – which puts huge power in the hands of the executive. In contrast to other advanced democracies like New Zealand and Germany, Westminster’s system is built on unearned majorities and resisting opposition – rather than working together.

In contrast to other advanced democracies like New Zealand and Germany, Westminster’s system is built on unearned majorities and resisting opposition – rather than working together. Click To Tweet

Below we republish part of FairVote’s report – on the long-term changes needed to tip the balance from executive power towards voters and representatives.

A significant proportion of respondents to Fair Vote UK’s consultation saw in this crisis not only the exposure of deep democratic shortcomings, but also the opportunity to introduce bold solutions…

They can be divided into three subcategories:

1. Increased democratic engagement
2. Decentralisation of power and emboldening of local authorities
3. Proportional representation

Increasing democratic engagement

Multiple respondents argued for greater public participation in the democratic process. Frequently, they advocated reform took the shape of citizens’ assemblies. It was argued by numerous respondents that their introduction would improve political scrutiny, bolster public confidence and help foster bipartisan consensus.^[1]

This was something promoted in the Electoral Reform Society’ submission to the consultation. An assembly or jury (composed of a representative sample of the population) could review legislation or emergency powers and thus act as an extra-parliamentary check on executive powers already massively extended as a result of the crisis.^[2] In this regard, remote citizens’ assemblies seem especially well suited to the particularities of the current challenge…^.

Decentralising power

Secondly, many raised the related problem of over-centralised power. This crisis has demonstrated the importance of the central state, but it has also shown us that many problems are best tackled by the authorities closest to them.

In their response to this consultation, the Electoral Reform Society noted that the United Kingdom’s, ‘set-up is already one of the most centralised, undemocratic systems among advanced democracies’, and warned that, ‘this crisis must not further entrench that’.^[3] Strengthening the many non-Westminster levels of the United Kingdom’s political system – from the devolved Parliaments to local councils – would allow a faster and potentially more robust response to a crisis like Covid-19.

This was the argument made by S. Bishop, who called for the devolution of, ‘much more power (and money) to the regions’, as well as the symbolic relocation of the country’s seat of government to the Midlands.^[4] C. Mann noted similar, writing that the ‘imbalance’ at the heart of the relationship between the United Kingdom’s four countries needed to be ‘overhauled’.^[5]

Proportional representation

Thirdly, multiple respondents made the case that the United Kingdom’s First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system had exacerbated the problems being faced in this crisis.^[6]…The core argument was that a proportional voting system would instil a more pluralistic and collaborative political culture, thus facilitating the kind of bipartisan cooperation that such a large number of the questionnaire’s respondents expressly desired.

The Electoral Reform Society also stressed this point, claiming that FPTP, ‘locks out millions of ordinary people from the debate’, and undermines ‘cooperative politics’ from taking root both at the national and local level.^[7]

Notably, their submission argued that this weakness of our system would be particularly felt as we emerge from this crisis and into a world where deep questions about public policy, how to pay for the Covid-19 response and the status of various sections of society and the economy will have to be debated and answered.^[8]

These three areas cover a lot of different ground. At their heart, however, is a desire to strengthen and deepen democracy…There is undoubtedly a public sense that in this tragic challenge lies the potential for positive, lasting change.

Read Democracy in the Age of Pandemic here.

^[1] D. Sibley, S. Bishop, J. Wire & E. Riminton-Drury, Written Evidence. Appendicies 83, 61, 52 & 14.

^[2] Electoral Reform Society, Written Evidence. Appendix 85.

^[3] Electoral Reform Society, Written Evidence. Appendix 85.

^[4] S. Bishop, Written Evidence. Appendix 61.

^[5] C. Mann, Written Evidence. Appendix 79.

^[6] R. Hurst, J. Brian, D. Williams & N. S. Horsley, Written Evidence. Appendicies 28, 48, 57 & 80.

^[7] Electoral Reform Society, Written Evidence. Appendix 85.

^[8] Ibid.

Sign our petition for a fair voting system in the UK

Since Labour’s Democracy Review was launched last year, the party’s internal structures have been exhaustively debated, picked over, and now amended.

The process by which parliamentary candidates are selected in Labour-held constituencies has been a particularly hot topic, with the party agreeing to make triggering a selection contest easier, among other reforms.

But Labour’s external democratic policies have been less discussed. Now though, Jon Trickett – the man in charge of preparing Labour for government – has strong words about our democracy.

At Politics for the Many’s event in Liverpool on Sunday, he declared Westminster over-centralised: “Our state structures have been captured by the interests of an elite. Our democracy has failed.”

He is right that there is much to do be done. Despite devolution, the UK is among the most centralised states in the developed world. And supporters are noticing.

According to fresh polling for the Electoral Reform Society, the vast majority of potential Labour voters believe this is an area which urgently requires attention.

In a mass poll for the ERS, BMG Research asked nearly 3,000 people whether or not they believed ‘democracy in Britain is in urgent need of reform.’

Of those respondents who said they intend to vote Labour at the next General Election, 75% agree – eight percentage points higher than among all respondents to the survey.

Looking at the result in more detail highlights that this view crossed many of the dividing lines in politics, both new and old.

Those who voted Leave and those who voted Remain were united in the view that democratic reform is needed – 71% of Leave voters and 66% of Remain voters agreed with the statement.

Older respondents were slightly more likely to agree than those who were younger, but support was high among both – an average of 68% among those 35 and older, compared to an average of 65% among those aged 34 and younger.

Support for reform also came from people of different economic standings. Poorer respondents (those in the C2DE social grade) were more likely to agree with the statement than those in the wealthier ABC1 grade, but only by four percentage points (70% compared to 66%).

The breadth of demand for reform from Labour supporters is matched by the breadth of the problems facing British democracy. Click To Tweet

As Jon Trickett MP told our event at The World Transformed on Sunday, power in the UK is overcentralised in the hands of the few at Westminster.

The House of Lords, in its current form, is an affront to democracy: its vast membership is unelected yet it plays a key role in every aspect of the country’s future.

And the archaic voting system used to elect MPs fails to give a voice to millions, throwing their votes onto the electoral scrapheap.

Added to that is a proposed cut in MPs, which could badly hinder the scrutinising role of Parliament over the Executive, alongside the imposition of mandatory voter ID which could deprive already marginalised groups of their democratic right to vote.

These problems are not ones which can be swept under the carpet. There is a sense of alienation with mainstream politics. But there is also a desire for change that can unite the country.

Most groups but particularly Labour supporters recognise that if they want an ‘economy for the many’, they need politics to be for the many, too.