These are difficult and uncertain times, with the coronavirus pandemic shutting down most normal activity in politics and across the country this month.

Despite the disruption, we’ve been campaigning the most democratic and safe Parliamentary response: allowing representatives to speak up for voter remotely. In this time of crisis, it is more important than ever that these life-changing decisions and legislation is held to account.

2019 General Election report

March saw the launch of our report on the 2019 General Election: ‘Voters Left Voiceless’. It found that 22.6 million voters’ ballots had no impact on the election result – an absolute negation of democracy.

Dr Jess Garland appeared on Sky News, with host Adam Boulton highlighting the disproportionate nature of the election results – and Jess noting the need for proportional representation in Westminster to ensure voters are finally heard in Parliament.

Willie Sullivan wrote a powerful piece for politics.co.uk, calling for real reform. The report and its findings were covered in the Independent as well as prominently in Scotland and Wales – where voters are used to being heard through PR – in the Evening Express, Holyrood magazine and the National.

Following the launch of our general election report we released new exclusive polling that highlighted the extent of tactical voting in December’s poll. The polling found that 32% of people voted tactically was again picked up in the Independent, PoliticsHome and in the Yorkshire Post, with Dr Jess Garland calling arguing that it’s time Westminster caught up with the rest of the UK, and ‘ensures seats in parliament reflect how people actually want to vote.’

Coronavirus and Parliament

In the last few weeks, we’ve led the call for parliament to respond to the pandemic not by shutting down, but by joining the 21^st century. Westminster must allow MPs to vote remotely from isolation, and use video technology so representatives can continue their work during the coronavirus crisis.

With MPs urged to stay away from Westminster we’ve argued that ‘the current crisis should not be used to “entrench” the centralisation of the UK’s democracy’.

As Willie Sullivan noted in the Independent: “At times of national crisis, the need for scrutiny increases, not decreases”. Our research officer Ian Simpson delved into the findings for Democratic Audit, noting the election was a ‘postcode lottery’ for voters.

Our calls for change were picked up widely, including by the BBC, the Metro, Mirror and the Evening Standard, as well as in Wales where the Senedd is now leading the way through digital meetings. Our proposals for digital Select Committees were heeded: the Commons’ rules were changed after we wrote to the Speaker, meaning ministers will still be held to account during recess. It marked a real win in ensuring MPs and their staff are protected and able to engage in scrutiny remotely during the crisis.

Following calls from 100 MPs to establish a ‘virtual Commons’ we again pushed the government to ensure proper legislative scrutiny during coronavirus. As ERS Chief Executive Darren Hughes argued in the Guardian: “Ministers and public officials must be held to account by those with a full suite of powers to call evidence, witnesses and use the full clout of parliament.”

Boundary changes scrapped

In March month the government quietly scrapped long held plans to cut the number of MPs in Westminster from 650 to 600 as part of a review into constituency boundaries. We led the charge against these plans when they were first proposed back in 2010 and welcomed the move this month.

This welcome u-turn by the government should be followed by a comprehensive overhaul of the bloated and unelected House of Lords. We were featured in on the BBCpolitics homepage, as well as ITV Wales, the Mirror, the New European, and across regional press such as the Express and Star.

Wider political reform

In Wales, ERS Cymru Director Jess Blair was quoted on the BBC calling for political education for young voters, ahead of the expansion of the franchise next year in Wales to allow 16- and 17-year olds to vote in Senedd elections.

We also kept up the pressure on overhauling the House of Lords. Hereditary peer ‘by-elections’ – which guarantee aristocrats seats for life in our Parliament – have now been rightly delayed for six months. Why not make it permanent?  The government can shelve their dangerous and undemocratic mandatory voter ID plans while they’re at it, as we noted in the Independent.

The pandemic means we will be shifting our focus in the coming months. But we’ll continue to stand up for voters – during the crisis and beyond.

Are we witnessing a power grab?

Six months ago, reports suggested that the Prime Minister had dropped plans to force through a cut in MPs, a cut linked with the ongoing review of constituency boundaries.

It turns out there has been a u-turn on the u-turn, with news emerging that the PM is set to reduce the number of MPs.

That’s despite the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee warning that moves to cut numbers to 600 are unlikely to secure the backing of MPs.

But why the fuss?

The issue comes down to a very ill-thought plan for new constituencies – alongside some clear democratic dangers when it comes to reducing voters’ representation.

The cut in MPs actually represents a cut in backbenchers if there are no plans to cap/cut the size of the executive or ‘payroll vote’ correspondingly.

Parliament will gain more powers after Brexit yet will have less capacity to scrutinise legislation. At the same time voters lose their representatives in Europe. That places a greater burden on the Commons and a lack of capacity poses significant risks.

The democratic dangers are clear. ERS research in 2016 showed that in a smaller, 600-seat Commons, nearly one in four (23%) MPs would be on the government payroll if the parties’ proportion of MPs – and the total number of ministers and whips – stayed the same – an all-time high, and up from the 21% at present (figures as of November 2016).

The more you look at it, the more cutting backbenchers at the same as bolstering the executive looks to many like a worrying power-grab.

But there’s another factor – the unelected Lords. It’s just common sense that the cut in democratically elected representatives cannot go ahead while the House of Lords remains the second largest chamber in the world, with around 800 members.

If the government are concerned about reducing the cost of politics, they would do well to deal with the over-sized second chamber.

Voters need real representation in the Commons to provide the essential scrutiny and capacity we need: both for now and when we gain new powers after Brexit.

But there are problems with the boundary changes regardless of the cut in MPs. For a start, the new boundaries will be based on highly incomplete as well as out of date data. For example, people who registered to vote for the EU referendum won’t be counted for the new boundaries – skewing representation.

At the same time, the government has set an arbitrary 5% maximum difference in the size of the new constituencies. That risks awkwardly splitting up communities or grafting very different towns/counties onto each other – just look at the controversial Devonwall proposals.

Finally, unregistered but eligible voters are not being considered when drawing up these constituency boundaries – even though they will still need support and representation from their MP. This disadvantages poorer constituencies – they end up with lower representation, often despite greater need.

Far from reducing political representation and weakening voters’ voices, the Prime Minister should cancel the proposed cut in MPs – and move forward with fair boundaries based on a properly resourced Commons.

Read the ERS’ full views on the boundary changes here: https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/upgrading-our-democracy/fair-boundaries/ and here https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/cutting-the-number-of-mps-will-have-consequences-lets-get-this-right/

Six months ago it appeared that controversial changes to electoral boundaries were to be dropped by the government.

There has never been a great appetite for the number of MPs to be cut from 650 to 600 – not least with more pressure on the Commons after Brexit.

Now the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee wants the current proposals to be scrapped in favour of redrawn boundaries, which retain the current seat total while levelling out the number of electors .

Yet the government seems to have u-turned on plans to drop the cut.

The problem, as we see it, is that the review has been undertaken on the basis of registered electors, rather than the actual population.

There are multiple issues associated with this approach and other issues with the plans.

Here are seven reasons why May should think again:

1. Areas with the lowest levels of registration are often those that already have the least voice in politics. Young people, some ethnic minority groups and those in the private rented sector are all less likely to register to vote than others. That makes many of them effectively cut out of the new political map when those areas get less representation than other areas. Everyone deserves representation, not just those on the register.

2. The review is being undertaken on the basis of a register that dates back to February 2016 – excluding masses of voters who signed up ahead of the Brexit referendum in June that year and indeed the 2017 General Election. That means some regions are two seats short of what they are owed. It would be much fairer – and would make more sense – to draw boundaries based on eligible population using census data rather than an incomplete electoral register.

3. Then we come to the carving up of communities themselves. The rigid 5% threshold – the maximum difference in size between constituencies allowed under the current review – means that some communities will be split up, while others will be merged and dragged into others.

We see this with the deeply unpopular ‘Devonwall’ seat that spans Cornwall and Devon – distinct areas with very distinctive identities and needs. Fair political boundaries are crucial to ensuring people are properly represented in Parliament but we shouldn’t tear apart close-knit areas in a rush to ‘equalise’ numbers.

4. On top of that, the strict 5% difference threshold introduces the prospect of huge disruption every five years, potentially sparking a boundary review for every election. Do we really want to spend infinite hours arguing about seat borders in the run up to every Westminster vote?

Of course, this is all happening alongside a reduction in the number of MPs– a policy based on the idea that shrinking the Commons will ‘cut the cost of politics’.

5. We have a growing unelected House of Lords – and a shrinking elected one. The House of Lords is a super-sized chamber – second only in size to China’s National People’s Congress – and shockingly poor value for money. Surely it would be more democratic to address the crisis in the House of Lords than to cut the number of elected MPs? David Cameron appointed 205 Peers at a cost of £13m. If you want to reduce the cost of politics, you could do worse than starting there and cutting down our bloated upper house.

6. Cutting the number of elected Parliamentarians does have one effect though – and sadly it’s not a good one. If you reduce the number of MPs in Parliament without reducing the number of ministers, you increase the power of the executive and make it more difficult to challenge the government. And that in turn will reduce Parliament’s ability to hold the Government to account.

7. Finally, the government talks about the need to ‘make every vote count’ through these changes. Yet the best way to do that is to give us a proportional and fair voting system.

It’s the elephant in the room – and it’s about time it was addressed. If the government really cares about making votes matter, they should concentrate on reforming the voting system.

In the conclusion to its report, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee call for the government to give MPs a chance to stop the reduction in the next few months. As the Times report, it would give the Boundary Commission time to prepare another (up to date) map — this time with 650 seats — in time for the 2022 election.

The whole review is in desperate need of a rethink – to ensure we have representation and boundaries which are made in the interests of voters, not party posturing.

This article was first published on Politics.co.uk

A steady rise in independent-minded MPs has been a positive feature of Westminster life in recent years. Parliament has always had its share of mavericks and their ranks have been refreshed by backbenchers who entered the Commons in 2015. This Parliament Week is a time to celebrate them. But this year in particular, it’s a time to stick up for them, too.

The backbencher, unbound by the restrictions of ministerial office or a whip’s job to maintain party discipline, is an under-appreciated part of good democracy – often flying in the face of a public view that ‘politicians are all the same’. Yet as South Cambridgeshire MP Heidi Allen told Westminster Hour this week, ‘most came to make a difference, not just toe the party line’.

Yet that role is at risk. The government’s plans to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600, in tandem with a boundary review, presents a real threat to the healthy balance between those who govern and those who scrutinise.

Between 1900 and 1979, the year Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister, the proportion of pay-roll MPs rose from 6% to 19%. Since then, it has crept up to 21%. Our research shows that if nothing changes after the cut in MPs, this figure will be nearly a quarter (23%) in the next Parliament. Why does this matter?

Firstly, independent-minded backbenchers play a vital role, both in speaking freely from the backbenches and in filling increasingly powerful roles of select committee chairs. Their unseen efforts matter too, working quietly across party lines on all-party groups and committees, to bring to light important issues or legislative problems. Culling MPs without also capping the number who serve on the PM’s payroll is a bad move for parliament’s role of scrutiny. But it is also out of step with the government’s commitment to reduce the size of government. As a proportion of MPs, we will actually have a bigger executive than ever.

Another worrying feature is the high proportion of governing party MPs in a government job.  After the boundary review, this could reach 43% of the Conservative’s total – the third highest ratio of frontbenchers to backbenchers in recorded peacetime history. Prime Ministers may fear rebellions as they try to advance legislation, but having a healthy number of their own party as backbenchers is hugely important – not least because they actually have a shot at influencing and may just help to head off ill-thought through measures before they hit the ground.

Of course, boundary reviews are invariably controversial, given their implications for individual MPs, parliamentary hopefuls and parties’ prospects for government. This round is all the more so, given there will be more MPs fighting over fewer seats and concerns about the on-going use of electoral registers as a boundary basis, rather than the more comprehensive population estimate.

But regardless of where lines are drawn on a map, the impact of the reduction in MPs on parliament’s role to hold the government to account must be put in the spotlight. On a recent visit to Canada to take part in the federal government’s consultation on electoral reform, I was struck by the party discipline – far heavier than ours – and extreme centralisation in the PM’s office. Our politics is stronger, the more we can empower politicians to speak up and speak out.

What is the solution? It’s to guarantee a healthy ratio of backbencher to government MPs. We’d suggest a maximum of a fifth of MPs in the pay of the PM. Enshrining a percentage in law is probably the best and most sustainable way to guarantee action across party lines – quite simply to make sure governments of all hues stick to it. Short of this, the government should lead the way by making a commitment on the floor of the House when the boundary review returns to Parliament in 2018.

In the meantime, let’s stand up for the rowdy, rebellious and out-spoken backbencher. We’d be all the poorer without them.  

Like this blog? Sign up to updates from the ERS here

It’s fair to say the boundary review has caused a stir. Why?

Let’s start with the whole basis of this shakeup. The boundary redrawing is being conducted on the basis of registered electors – rather than the actual eligible population. here’s seven reasons why that risks skewing our democracy:

1. Areas with the lowest levels of registration are often those that already have the least voice in politics. Young people, some ethnic minority groups and those in the private rented sector are all less likely to register to vote than others. That makes many of them effectively cut out of the new political map when those areas get less representation than other areas. Everyone deserves representation, not just those on the register.

2. What’s more, the review is being undertaken on the basis of a register that’s nearly a year out of date – excluding over two million people who signed up between December and June. That means some regions are two seats short of what they are owed. It would be much fairer – and would make more sense – to draw boundaries based on eligible population using census data rather than an incomplete electoral register.

3. Then we come to the carving up of communities themselves. The rigid 5% threshold – the maximum difference in size between constituencies – means that some communities will be split up, while others will be merged and dragged into others.

We see that with the deeply unpopular ‘Devonwall’ seat that spans Cornwall and Devon – distinct areas with very distinctive identities and needs. Fair political boundaries are crucial to ensuring people are properly represented in Parliament: we shouldn’t tear apart close-knit areas in a rush to ‘equalise’ numbers.

4. But on top of that, the strict 5% difference limit poses the prospect of huge disruption every five years through sparking a boundary review for every election. Do we really want to spend infinite hours arguing about seat borders in the run up to every Westminster vote?

Of course, this is all happening alongside a reduction in the number of MPs – something that has a bizarre rationale when you think about it. Because the government argue shrinking the Commons will ‘cut the cost of politics’.

5. Yet we have a growing unelected House of Lords – and a shrinking elected one. The House of Lords is a super-sized second chamber – second only to China – and shockingly poor value for money. Surely it would be more democratic to address the crisis in the House of Lords than to cut the number of elected MPs? The last Prime Minister appointed 205 Peers over the past six years, at a cost of £13m already. If you want to reduce the cost of politics, you could do worse than starting there and cutting down our bloated upper house.

6. Cutting the number of elected Parliamentarians does have one effect though – and sadly it’s not a good one. If you reduce the number of MPs in Parliament without reducing the number of ministers, you increase the power of the executive and make it more difficult to challenge the government. And that in turn will reduce the ability for Parliament to do its job of holding the Government to account.

7. Finally, the Government talks about the need to ‘make every vote count’ through these changes. Yet the best way to do that is to give us a proportional and fair voting system.

It’s the elephant in the room – and it’s about time it was addressed. If the government really cares about making votes matter, they should concentrate on reforming the voting system.

So this boundary review is flawed on a number of levels – and will have implications for decades to come. It’s time for the Government to think again before pushing through these damaging changes. 

Since 2010, the Prime Minister has appointed rather a lot of Peers. 244, to be precise. That’s a lot of new politicians. So it was strange to hear the news on Friday that the government are going ahead with cutting the number of MPs from 650 to 600.

The government is ignoring the advice of the Commons Political and Constitutional Committee, published last March. Why? Because they want to ‘cut the cost of politics and tackle the deficit left by the previous Administration’, in the government’s own words.

Why then, has the Prime Minister appointed Peers to the House of Lords at a faster rate than any Prime Minister in British history?

Let’s look at what this means. 244 Peers in six years – or in other words, 40 new unelected politicians per year.

But, you might say, Peers are unpaid.

Well, not exactly. Peers are able to claim up to £300 a day tax-free for turning up. They don’t have to prove that they’ve done anything – they just have to sign a form.

In the 2014-2015 term, around £100m was spent on the House of Lords. We worked out exactly how much the average Peer claims in expenses and allowances per year. It’s £25,826 – about the average full-time UK wage, but for a (sometimes very) part-time job – and some of course claim much more than that. And that’s before office costs, extra staff, catering and infrastructure costs are taken into account. When the whole cost of the Lords is taken into account, the average Peer costs £118,000 a year.

But let’s take the conservative estimate. 244 Peers at an average cost of £26k a year in just expenses and allowances. That equals… *drum roll please* … £6.3m per year.

So Cameron is responsible for an extra £6.3m per year in increasing the cost of our unelected and already bloated upper chamber. There has been a 17% increase in the number of Lords, at the same time as the government are reducing the number of MPs by 8%.

Cutting the number of elected MPs to save money, in this context, looks pretty tenuous – and not just in terms of cost. Fewer MPs means fewer people for Select Committees and all the scrutiny work that’s needed. And if the government doesn’t reduce the number of Ministers, it also boosts the power of the Executive at the cost of backbenchers. With a higher proportion of MPs on the government pay-roll, there’s a high risk that the Commons will be undermined as a greater percentage of MPs are forced to tow the government line. So there are democratic issues at stake too.

Good democracy costs money. Politics costs money, and running a country costs money. Having 100 MPs would be cheaper than 650, while having just 1 MP would be cheaper still. But at what cost?

So here’s an idea: how about the government concentrates on the real money-drain, but more importantly the real democracy­-drain: the unelected House of Lords.