I was a local government reporter in Oxford in the dark days of the 1980s. No public question time. No scrutiny. No appeals of any kind.
I even remember one definitely old Labour councillor telling me that he screwed up and threw away letters from his constituents, without reading them, if they had the temerity to send them to his home address. Or, worse – address him in ways that seemed not to reflect the dignity of his position.
Liberals and SDP councillors around the country were then introducing the right of members of the public to address council meetings, or ask questions.
These don’t seem revolutionary now, but they did at the time. At least if you listened to the rage of old-style Labour and Conservative councillors who faced the indignity of explaining themselves to voters on the hallowed ground of the town hall.
Local government has changed in the last quarter century, and – by busting apart that cosy world on behalf of voters – Liberal Democrats have been the chosen instrument of change. They had the opportunity, but they also had the history and tradition behind them. Because the role of Liberals in British politics for the last century and a half has been to carry on pushing at the boundaries of what democracy is.
They have done so in the teeth of opposition from Conservatives who prefer to limit democracy to letting people vote every few years, and keeping quiet – awed by the dignity of Parliament – in the meantime.
The arguments against extending the meaning of democracy from the occasional vote have always been the same – right back to opposition to the Great Reform Bill. Parliament is sovereign. You can’t trust people with complex decisions. We have (said the Duke of Wellington in 1830) the best possible constitution already, the envy of the world.
There are many reasons (and heavens, don’t we hear them) why total direct democracy can never work. The fear of the mob runs very deep in the British establishment.
But as Liberals have shown in every generation, democracy is more than that. It means the right to information, holding our representatives to account, taking power into our own hands, making things happen, campaigning, volunteering and the whole gamut of active citizenship.
And it means the right to demand of our establishment, elected by whatever system, in moments of crisis – like war in Iraq – than they think again.
When these aspects of democracy atrophy, or are successfully discouraged because the systems that allow them are empty – e-petitions to Downing Street that are never read, for example – then the rest of democracy grinds to a halt too. People don’t vote; they buy into bizarre conspiracy theories, or take it out on scapegoats.
That’s why Liberalism is about expanding the possibilities of democracy in its broadest sense. It’s why Lib Dem Kingston introduced the right of a hundred local citizens to call in decisions and have them re-run. It’s why Lib Dem Eastleigh, South Somerset and Stockport have decentralised power. It’s why Lib Dem Milton Keynes pioneered participatory budgeting.
Their pioneering efforts are what inspired our motion at Bournemouth about extending democracy, which calls for provision for People’s Bills and, in extremis, a People’s Veto whereby if one million registered voters petitioned against an Act of Parliament within 60 days of its being passed, a referendum would have to be held on whether or not to repeal it.
Judging by the way these ideas are used elsewhere in the world, they will be used rarely. But at least people will know they are available. They are not cut out of the system when it matters. They can act.
These are controversial ideas, even today, especially for the New Labour and Tory establishment, which has in every generation put the outward trappings of our institutions, and their dignity – regardless of their effectiveness – before the people they serve.
Liberals who have to remind them that these reforms strengthen our democracy and our institutions, just as Paddy Ashdown had to remind Tony Blair that sovereignty resides – not with the Prime Minister, or even with Parliament – but with people.
None of these reforms are risk-free. But they are not half as risky as failing to push forward democracy when people are losing faith in it.
None of them are guaranteed to reach the right decisions. But they are not half as guaranteed to reach the wrong ones than a pompous political system that is insulated against the public they represent.
They represent the best of the Liberal tradition as we go into the century, and the right stance for Liberals towards our rulers and institutions – healthy scepticism.
They also represent the translation into our own generation of Gladstone’s famous maxim: Toryism means distrust of the people tempered by fear; Liberalism means trust in the people tempered by prudence.
David Boyle is a member of FPC and a fellow of the New Economics Foundation. His latest book Toward the Setting Sun was published in June by Bloomsbury USA. ‘Giving Citizens a Voice in Parliament’ (F3) will be debated at Bournemouth Conference on Saturday 13 September at 14.40-15.20.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Paul Simon: Born at the Right Time
F10 is passed overwhelmingly. Now the work begins...
Blackness Road - 1967 #dundeewestend
Torchwood is now a Cardiff Bay institution
Paul Duffy selected by Lib Dems for Runcorn & Helsby by-election
Mike Peters
Alex Macfie
Craig Levene
theakes
Thelma Davies
6 Comments
I think the motion contains some interesting ideas, although I would remove the committment to a petition of a million triggering off a referendum. It reminds me of the farce of the Liberal magazine’s petition for Charles Kennedy to resign, the checks as to who actually signed were not there.
I think we should also consider that the role of MPs is important. Unlike the electorate as a whole, they do decide how to vote after a debate. They have the time to take everything into account. There are some law and order issues that would win many votes, but will also be very expensive for tax payers, or impratical in many ways. New Labour has tried to formulate policies based on what Focus groups say they want, and that led to Tony Blair demanding on the spot fines, only then to discover that the police thought it a stupid idea and the idea was dropped.
That said, the general principle I agree with and I will support the motion. If people are drawn more into the political debate, that might start to break the dangerous downward spiral into apathy and antipathy.
Might.
I like the idea of the petition of a million, but it would surely be a complete administrative nightmare?
Have read this motion and on the whole it is great. The one thing I disagree with is the petition for a referendum. I think that referenda conflict with the principle of a representative democracy. If you look at the record of referenda in Switzerland and the US there is hardly a single ballot initiative that is not regressive and has been whipped up by the right-wing media. This just gives more power to Murdoch and co.
There will be a seperate vote at conference on lines 27-29 which is the section on the ‘people’s veto’ ie the referendum policy discussed above.
The seperate vote has been requested by the Canterbury Lib Dems.
Would the veto be applicable to a piece of legislation in its entirety or just to certain clause? Quite often, oppresive measures are contained within quite generally reasonable pieces of legislation.
The people’s Bill idea is a potential nightmare too – won’t this always be topped by some anti-liberal measures like brining back corporal punishment or some kind of Megan’s/Sarah’s law? As with the veto, it would be susceptable to influence by the rightwing press.
On the whole the motion is well meaning, but if we want to be treated as a serious political party I think that it needs to be seriously amended on the peoples Bill/veto front. Any kind of progressive legislation that the country introduces will almost certainly be neutered by the effects of this motion.
Answering a few of these points:
1) “If you look at the record of referenda in Switzerland and the US there is hardly a single ballot initiative that is not regressive and has been whipped up by the right-wing media.” (Neil Bradbury) / “Any kind of progressive legislation that the country introduces will almost certainly be neutered by the effects of this motion.” (Doug)
First of all, the motion does not propose a Swiss-style initiative and referendum system – that would be a step too far for me personally, at least in lieu of a written constitution and entrenched Bill of Rights.
I have looked at what happens in Switzerland and elsewhere and challenge these assertions.
For example, the Swiss overwhelmingly voted for same sex partnerships a couple of years ago. In South Dakota in 2006, a ballot initiative was used to overturn a tough anti-abortion law. Ireland scrapped the death penalty by referendum.
If you look across the board, the picture is mixed. Prosaicly, rightwing countries tend to vote for rightwing ballot initiatives and leftwing countries tend to vote for leftwing ballot initiatives, with exceptions to both rules to keep things interesting.
2. “I like the idea of the petition of a million, but it would surely be a complete administrative nightmare?” (Jennie Rigg)
At the moment, yes, which is why the motion calls for the security of the electoral register to be tightened up. Without individual voter registration (which is party policy) I would argue that a formal petitioning process would be about as secure as the Downing Street petition engine (i.e. not).
Fundamentally though, there is nothing particularly complicated about it, and the countries which operate don’t have a problem.
3. “I think we should also consider that the role of MPs is important.” (Geoffrey Payne)
Absolutely – which is why every proposal in the motion allows MPs to have the final say. Even the veto proposal does nothing to prevent MPs from introducing exactly the same legislation after a referendum has rejected it.
4. “Would the veto be applicable to a piece of legislation in its entirety or just to certain clause?” (Doug)
The motion doesn’t go into that much detail and the FCC would almost certainly reject it if it did. Personally, I’m open-minded about that. I can see how, for example, it would work very well regarding a specific criminal offence within a wider bill, but I wouldn’t want to see it being used to cherry keep “benefits” (such as a new road) but reject the means to pay for it (such as a new tax). At the same time, to take a recent example, I can see how it would come in very handy in exposing the complete mess the government made of the Finance Bill this year.
It is very deliberately limited to “think again” legislation for that very reason.
5. “The people’s Bill idea is a potential nightmare too – won’t this always be topped by some anti-liberal measures like brining back corporal punishment or some kind of Megan’s/Sarah’s law?” (Doug)
Your faith in your fellow human beings is truly touching! But no, this isn’t the international experience, and in any case MPs will have a free rein to vote whichever way they choose on these issues.
I’m a democrat: I disagree with them but I recognise that there are significant numbers of people crying out for a “Sarah’s law.” For Parliament to be relevant to the people, it is only right that they debate such proposals every now and again.
Finally, I would request that people don’t take single issues in isolation. One criticism of both the “veto” and “people’s bill” proposals I would accept is that they would work less well if Parliament remains elected by FPTP than they would under PR. But that isn’t an argument for not supporting these measures – it is an argument for electoral reform.