Search

Getting it in Proportion?

Trade unions and electoral reform

• Download the full ToUChstone Extra report in Adobe PDF format

Foreword, Brendan Barber

At our 2009 Congress, delegates voted in support of a motion calling on the TUC to stimulate debate about electoral reform for Westminster elections. This Touchstone Extra report is designed to start that debate.

It does not come to any conclusion, but sets out both the arguments for change and for sticking with the status quo. Without getting bogged down in detail, it describes the various alternative electoral systems and sets out their advantages and disadvantages. It argues that there is no perfect electoral system that suits every part of government in every country, but rather that different electoral systems all have their own strengths and weaknesses.

It draws out one factor that is sometimes missing in what can be a rather abstract debate about voting systems. This is that a country's electoral system will shape a country's politics. Politicians want to get elected and hold power, and they are bound to act in a way that maximises their chances of doing this.

For example, whatever the strengths of our present system it encourages the major parties to concentrate their efforts in marginal seats, and on the floating voters within them who are most likely to switch their votes. Safe seats and core voters end up getting taken for granted.

That is not to say that this is a sufficient argument for change. That would be to pre-empt the debate. But it does make the case that voting systems can have a real impact on the lives of ordinary people, and is not just a 'chattering class' issue.

Of course we should not change our electoral system without much debate and thought. There needs to be a very strong case before we change it. It is up to those who want to see a change make the case and win the support of those who have not yet been convinced. Inevitably perhaps this paper spends more time discussing the case for change, how it might work and what it would mean. This is because the case for the status quo is simply and straightforwardly put: the argument for change is not strong or convincing enough. I know that many people in the trade union movement feel this, just as there are passionate advocates of change.

The paper also discusses the practicalities of change. Few people seem to disagree that if we are to have a change then there should be a referendum.

While no-one knows what the result of the next election will be, with the Conservatives opposed to a referendum the only sure way to secure a popular vote on the voting system is for this Parliament to legislate for a referendum.

No-one is calling for a snap referendum that could change the electoral system for the next general election. But if we want change then either a referendum on polling day, or a requirement to have one shortly after the general election, is the best way to achieve it.

Of course we may conclude that the existing first-past-the-post system is the right one for the UK, but if so, then my strong view is that we would need to look at other political reforms or changes to our political system.

The MPs expenses scandal, the declining turnout and the relatively small share of the popular vote required to form a government, while the vote for third and other parties rises, all point to something wrong with our democracy. We have an unelected second chamber. Our Parliament remains unrepresentative of the population particularly in regard to gender and ethnicity. Parties can become dependent on limited numbers of super-rich donors, who do not even have to be resident for tax purposes.

The evidence suggests we need a major clean-up and reinvigoration of our politics. It is very unlikely that there is a single measure that can do this, and it will take action in a number of areas. Electoral reform may or may not be part of what is required, but unions - as the largest mass democratic organisations in our society - must make their contribution to analysing what is wrong and helping reinvigorate our political system.

Unions have democracy built into our DNA; it is how we conduct our internal business. The basic justification for unions is that the power relationship between employer and employee is fundamentally one-sided, and that employees need to join together to restore some balance.

But the same argument holds for wider society. Power and wealth become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands without countervailing pressures secured through democratic institutions, law and regulation, quality public services and a strong, vibrant civil society. None of those are possible without a democratic society. This is why it is right for unions to play a part in this important debate.

• Download the full ToUChstone Extra report in Adobe PDF format
• Read more on electoral reform from ToUChstone on the blog

Report (900 words) issued 15 Jan 2010