One of the consequences of the failure of the AV campaign may be radical change at the venerable Electoral Reform Society. The ERS is conducting the biennial election for its Council at the moment with no less than 53 candidates standing for election to fill 15 places. There is also a range of motions at the AGM on 3 September, some of which would make fundamental changes to the ERS.
The main prize for anyone who controls the ERS is financial – they have by pressure group standards a huge income through their ownership of Electoral Reform Services Ltd which provides electoral services to a vast range of unions and professional bodies. In 2009 the firm had profits of £1.8m (down from £3m the previous year), net assets of £12.4m (including £4.6m in cash) and paid a dividend of £1.7m to the ERS.
Many (but by no means all) of the candidates who want change are banded to together in the ‘Reform Slate’ of 15 people, most of who worked together at grassroots level during the referendum and are angry about what they see as the incompetent way that campaign was run. Arnie Craven—who had headed up the Yes campaign in Leeds for example—says that he organised the distribution of 150,000 leaflets only to find that Yes had decided not to use the Freepost. Another member of the reform slate is Andy May who wrote a scathing insider’s account of the campaign.
One of the strengths of the Reform slate is that it has a range of political views (from UKIP members to several people who worked on David Miliband’s leadership bid) and organizational skills with some experienced managers to balance the youthful enthusiasm of the activists. Chris Carrigan, Chair of the (successful) Oxford Yes campaign, is a former Partner at Accenture and I suspect might end up ERS Chair if the reform slate forms a majority.
On the other hand there seems to be a very wide range of views about what the ERS should actually do and particularly the extent to which it should focused on other democratic initiatives such as reform of the Lords, increasing participation of women and votes at 16. I suspect if they are successful there will be considerable tensions on the Council over this the balance between campaigning for PR and campaigning for more general political reform.
The Reform slate’s website has more details about their position at www.ersreform.org.uk
No other group of candidates is as well organised. There are a number of individuals who want changes in the ERS as well as 9 existing members of council who are re-standing. Some of the current officers—for example Andrew Burns and Keith Sharp (Chair and Deputy Chair, respectively) are at pains to stress the organisational improvement of the last couple of years, particularly since Katie Ghose was appointed Chief Executive—but none of them really addresses the disaster of the Yes campaign. Talking to several current members of the Council they are very clear (and convincing) about the ERS’s lack of responsibility for the running of Yes but not covering this on their election addressees may prove a tactical error.
You can read all the candidates manifestos here.
An unknown factor in the election is the vast increase in membership over the last year from 2,500 to 5,000. A large part of this is due to an offer of free membership for 12 months which the ERS have been running. This was a great way of bringing on board the activists who they made contact with during the referendum but it may prove rather a brave (or naïve) move (interestingly it was not discussed by the ERS Council, a number of whose members may lose re-election because of it). The dangers of this were highlighted by veteran Lib Dem politician Michael Meadowcroft who is restanding for the Council and who unsuccessfully warned the Officers about the danger of entryism if they offered free membership without a waiting period before new members could vote.
The ERS makes available to candidates a printed list of members with names and addresses (but not e-mail addresses) which has helped the reform slate who have been able to to share the work (and cost) of organising a mail shot between them, which would be time consuming and expensive for an individual.
Just after the election is the AGM on 3 September. The most controversial motion is to delete STV from the ERS objectives – to support PR but not by a specific means. Others make the President a post elected by members and make the council elections annual – they all require a 75% vote in favour and all are (unanimously) opposed by the current Council.
I suspect that there will be big changes on the Council and a great deal of bitterness by some of the losers. There are already mutterings about the legitimacy of the electoral process and about legal action over the way the election has been run. It is not impossible that a body which prides itself on campaigning for fair elections will end up in Court over the way it runs it own. If the reform slate is successful then we will have a very different ERS, spending large amounts of money on the sort of campaigns that groups like Take Back Parliament and Unlock Democracy have run rather than as one reformer describes the current work of the Society ‘academic stuff’.
Whatever happens it will be a very different body than the one the late Enid Lakeman ran for so many years.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Can we have a referendum please, Rishi?
GP services over the Easter holiday
Council by-election results scorecard 2022-2023
The Joy of Six 1121
My tweets
Richard Denton-White
Steve Trevethan
Keith Legg
Peter Davies
Andrew Melmoth
41 Comments
I’m still waiting for an explanation of why Ken Ritchie was shovelled out and Katie Ghose – who seems to me to be spectacularly ineffective – brought in.
I worked for Arnie Craven in the Leeds office. Will be voting for him, and other reformers. The candidates that don’t mention the AV referendum still have their heads buried in the sand: we lost the best chance we had been given in a lifetime, and if the necessary changes to the direction of the organisation aren’t made, the next time we are given an opportunity we will be equally unprepared.
Cheers for that. I wasn’t aware of the reform slate. I’d decided my preferences would go to people who had acknowledged the failure of the YES campaign so this should make it easier.
Still difficult though – so many candidates, many of them saying very similar things.
I am bracing to find the time to wade through the huge pack of paperwork. I thought we Lib Dems were could at execisvly sized bundles of paper work.
“there will be considerable tensions on the Council over this the balance between campaigning for PR and campaigning for more general political reform.”
Would the ERS now be interested in advocating electoral reforms that mitigate the failings of FPTP, or would still be seen as contrary to the objective of PR at any and all costs?
“There are many ways in which our system could be improved: localism, recall mechanisms, citizens’ initiative procedures, open primaries.”
The above quote list but a few that I would support…..
From my limited involvement in The YES campaign I saw The ERS itself as an obstacle, they werent just useless, their contribution was actually damaging.
It wasnt just the aged leadership either, most of the activsts I met were very young & seemed fully behind the “progressive alliance” strategy.
Andy May (mentioned aboove) will be our guest speaker at the Hackney Lib Dems garden party on Sunday 4th September, 2pm;
See http://www.hackneylibdems.org.uk/events.php
There are some misunderstandings here — primarily this one: the Electoral Reform Society was not responsible for the running of the Yes to AV campaign. It is correct that we were major backers, in terms of money donated and staff seconded to the campaign. But the campaign itself was set up as a coalition effort of like-minded groups, from the Society, to Unlock Democracy and Take Back Parliament. It is correct that our CE Katie Ghose, had a prominent role in the campaign, but she only joined in October 2010, by which time much of the essential structure and decision-making was in place.
My own role (apart from local campaigning in Islington), as an elected ERS Council member, was limited to being a member of a campaign ‘Advisory Council’ — which in the event only met about 3-4 times and was absolutely not involved in any kind of decision-making related to the campaign. It turned out to be a frustrating exercise, seeing the referendum being lost. Some of the ‘slate’ candidates were working on the campaign directly and therefore had more chance to influence things than ERS Council members did. It is frankly wrong to claim that ERS Council members were responsible for the campaign.
So the Society and the Yes campaign were not one and the same. And yes, as I have said in my election statement, we DO need to learn the lessons of the referendum, although a single page candidate statement is hardly the chance to go into detail. One positive we must take is that we can recruit new members and supporters, so that we are better resourced and energised for the future. That’s one reason why Society membership has grown.
Keith Sharp
ERS Vice Chair since 2009; and current Council candidate
Any move to ban the Scottish MPs who signed the Scottish Claim to Rights from holding seats at Westminster on the grounds that its objectives are almost certainly contrary to the aims of a Parliament for a United Kingdom?
@Derek – I have no knowledge of why Ken Ritchie left but if it was disputed there was probably a ‘compromise agreement’ which would contain a clasuse imposing a confientiality clause on both parties. That would explain why you can’t be given more information
There is another website supporting the ‘reform slate’ here:
http://www.reformgroups.net/?q=ERS2011
It’s good to see that Lib Dem Voice is taking an interest in the ERS elections this year. They are, as you suggest, strongly contested by 53 candidates. However, I would say that there are a few issues that I think you should be aware of in your report – the website you refer to http://www.ersreform.org.uk is not the website of the group of 15 candidates that myself, Arnie Craven and Andy May are members.
It is a website that has been set up by another candidate – Graham Smith who is not a member of the 15 strong team working together to try to reform the ERS into a more effective campaigning organisation. I think we were all surprised at how ineffective the democracy sector was in preparation for the AV referendum, and I do find it somewhat disingenuous of some suggesting that the ERS was not responsible for the campaign.
The Chief Executive was the Chair of the campaign and many of its staff had prominent positions within the HQ in London – including the Director of FIeld Operations – the person responsible for the ground campaign. If this isn’t responsible I wonder what is!
Many of us are members of the Liberal Democrats but as you point out we have people from all parties involved in our team – above all we agree on one thing. With the once in a generation chance of electoral reform apparently now having gone we need to take stock and ensure that we learn the very difficult lessons of the campaign and the simple truth is that ERS is not fit for purpose in its present form – we have to reform ourselves before we have a realistic prospect of reforming the electoral system. How can an organisation that had only 1500 members 6 months ago and only 5200 now seriously think it is up to the job. We need a major building plan to organise the ERS for the future to make sure that when the chance comes again we are ready and that we win!
@john – thanks for clarifying, sorry for any confusion.
I honestly think the only way is forward. The council elections are the fresh start ERS needs, with fresh faces and fresh ideas. The referendum was lost, in my opinion, down to one simple thing: people did not want AV. Lets not dwell on the past, and it’s not a case of ‘don’t mention the war’. It’s the truth as I see it. If people had a choice of which voting system to change to we might all be talking about a much different matter.
As long as the people elected to the council want a positive change and are prepared to work to get it then it will happen, and if that is the case they have my full support.
The AGM will be very interesting and I am looking forward to it and what will come about from it, so much so I am coming down from Hull for the day.
By the way, anyone from the Hull and East Yorkshire area who wants to get involved in ERS: email me. Thanks
Looking at the reform slate leaflet it reminded me of the Yes campiagn itself.
Be woolly state the obvious, but don’t get down to the issue.
The referendum was not lost because the leaflets were not delivered to every address. It was lost because the leaflets were crap!
Who cares if MPs work harder or not? I can think of a few that I would prefer to work less!
Especially the ones with jerky knees.
‘Why we are voting yes’ is the name of one of these leaflets.
It avoided explaining what the change was at all, it was like an advert for soap powder no wonder the NO campign got away with it’s lies!
The ERS council had no say in the YES campaign, many of the people in the ‘Reform Group’ were full time paid members of it!
The only decent advert was Reform Cat and that was not even on TV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHuiDD_oTk
The constitutional amendments they are proposing are poorly thought out and include for example term limits for council members (which would mean people like Mike Meadowcroft and Kest Best being turfed out, perhaps to be replaced like me) .
I am in favor of yearly elections by the way, but not term limits!
I am a candidate in the ERS elections
A website opposing what the reform group are saying is
http://stvaction.org.uk/
I worked with Arnie and the Leeds Yes team, helping them with contacts and volunteers from the local Lib Dems. At every stage of the campaign there were some great on the ground field campaigners who were frustrated by the failures of the campaign at the centre.
If, as Keith Sharp says, the ERS council had so little influence over the campaign this is almost as big a problem as the campaign itself. Why were they willing to donate such huge sums of money without making sure it was spent effectively? This is a huge failure of the old ERS council in my opinion.
As for Micheal Meadowcrofts ridiculous statements about entryism. By the sounds of it, a good bit of entryism is exactly what the ERS needs to turn into an organisation that will actually do something effective withits millions!
I will be voting for Arnie and the other candidates on the reform slate. Good luck to them and all other candidates trying to bring about change in the ERS.
I am one of the former AV campaigners who have joined the ERS recently. I have been watching the run-up to the elections with interest and, at times, with concern.
“The dangers of this were highlighted by veteran Lib Dem politician Michael Meadowcroft who is restanding for the Council and who unsuccessfully warned the Officers about the danger of entryism if they offered free membership without a waiting period before new members could vote.”
This in particular was something I have been concerned about. I have seen some campaigning along the lines of ‘join the ERS – it’s free – in order to vote for me’ and I really didn’t like the sound of that, particularly not within an organisation supposed to be concerned with the integrity of elections. I hope it’s been a limited phenomenon (as it seems so from my perspective, and none of the worrying examples I have seen came from people who are now actually standing).
I am generally impressed with the people on the reform platform but I am also uneasy about the idea of a complete change in one fell swoop. Unlike many YES campaigners, I have a good deal of respect for Auntie ERS. They were involved in the campaign, sure, and clearly were well out of their comfort zone, but I consider the ERS brand (and, let’s be honest, its coffers) as quite an asset for the cause. Clearly, a change is needed, but I’d like to see some respect for the long history of the organiation as well.
I’d like a good mix of old and new members on the new council, to be honest. It’s certainly going to be interesting to see where this is going.
The proposal concerning STV is particularly intriguing, I have to say. I think that the single-minded focus on STV isn’t exactly helpful at this point, however wonderful an electoral system it might be (at least for some purposes). There is a wider range of issues which could be within the remit of the ERS without it losing its distinct mission and identity, and I hope to see it branch out a bit, both in the scope of its aims as well as in the range of methods it employs to achieve its goals.
I am extremely glad this article has appeared in LDV as I thought I might have to write an article myself to try to stimulate debate on this vital issue. The rejection of AV in the vote appears to be the complete antithesis of the riots that occurred last week. Yet in a strange twist brought about by apparent heavy handed justice dispensed to those “purporting” to advocate riotous assembly if that, has possibly made strange and unlikely bedfellows. How is that possible?
Let me make it clear so there is no misunderstanding, Yes, I am in favour of the full weight of the law being used against the backdrop of the riots against potential murderers, arsonists, looters, and other crimes against the person, and property. No, despite those being present being “guilty” of stupidity I am not automatically in favour of a disproportionate response in sentencing to others associated with the riots unless their action has involved breaking another law as well as being involved in the riots.
Without seeking to justify the riots in any shape or form there have nonetheless been unintended consequences both during, and after the riots. Young people involved in the riots have been alienated from the older generation. The Judiciary appear to be making Social Policy in their sentencing policy of rioters. Politicians feel they need to be seen to be acting in ways which mean they are not perceived as being “weak” towards dealing with present, and quite possibly any future riotous assemblies (including students?). Our democratic system was tested to the limit during the riots, but potentially is under even greater danger from those wanting to “protect” society, and the need to protect the status quo of society from those most alienated from that society, and who currently may not embrace the merits of that status quo.
Ironically it is that same wish to see society only run in that one direction by predominantly the older generation that
lead in part to the rejection of AV in the vote. But it is precisely against this backdrop there should be a renewed vigour for strengthening our democratic institutions and to protect them from being destroyed, or misused. The most precious of all these is our vote, and the representativeness of the voting system that underpins that. If we want to encourage outlets for Civil disquiet, and disobedience other than violence then a truly representative voting system in which people feel they have a genuine stake in influencing events, and exercising power is fundamental. Those who have no stake in society however small, or large that may be may not have any commitment, or feel obligated to observe that society’s value systems. Our First Past the Post system clearly shows deficiencies in achieving that objective. Therefore if we want to strengthen our society, empower “all” of our citizens, and avoid the threat of anarchy through rioting again then changing our voting system is back on the agenda again.
Can I wish all those involved in the current revitalisation of the ERS the best of luck in the forthcoming elections.
Few things are more likely to dent support for STV than trying to list 56 candidates in order of preference on the basis of a often badly written one page statement 🙂
The yes to AV campaign was bad, but then it is far from certain that the campaign could have been decisive as the fundamental flaws were set in stone in the way the referendum was negotiated and agreed.
I am concerned that the reform slate are supporting term limits – hang on, one of the points of STV is to maximise voter choice and if I want the same old people, then I’ll give them my highest preferences.
It is very easy to talk about building a campaign and getting more people involved – but even with a 10 fold increase in membership, ERS will remain small.
There is criticism of wasting money on polling and focus groups early on and yet criticism that more wasn’t spent later.
Part of the problem seems to me to be that there is a huge difference between being a pressure group or organisation with a special self interest to promote – and the ERS that is and should be a political reform movement.
That almost inevitably means being involved in politics, which for a charity is problematic.
STV for local government is a sensible strategic objective, but no amount of petitions or lobbying will achieve it until either Labour or Conservatives parties come on board.
The man most responsible for losing the AV referendum is Ed Milliband – and as he has made clear, he has no interest in electoral reform beyond AV, and to say his support for AV was half-hearted would be an understatement.
Good article, you’ve done a great job of carving though it to the real issues. With 50+ candidates all firing off campaigns in different directions it really in confusing.
Just one further clarification http://www.reformgroups.net/ is supporting the debate not particular candidates. Although obviously a lot of the people on the site, myself included, are members of the ‘May List’ (we really are going to have to come up with a brand to stop all this confusion with the ERS reform campaign) the site is a separate thing.
@Caracatus
“The man most responsible for losing the AV referendum is Ed Milliband”
The referendum would have been lost anyway. And since many in his party were opposed his position as party leader would have been weakened if he had campaigned more vigourously.
“He has no interest in electoral reform beyond AV”
Quite a lot of people who supported AV dislike PR (just as some of us who support PR think AV is possibly even worse than FPTP). It’s a matter of opinion. Of course, Ed may have calculated that the centerist vote – which tends to be inflated by AV – is now lost to the Lib Dems among Labour supporters and that some Lib Dems unhappy with the coalition would have given their second preference to Labour. Or am I just a cynic?
There is no doubt that this year’s ERS council elections are vitally important.
The strong opinions as to “what went wrong” in the YES camp and who was to blame for the errors in campaigning methods employed are in danger of overshadowing an election that will decide the future direction of the Society.
Of course, the loss of the referendum is important and questions do need to be answered – but, as Keith Sharp (ERS Vice Chair) say’s : “the Society and the Yes campaign were not one and the same.” The questions that need answers are perhaps best addressed to those who played integral roles within the campaign – many of who are now seeking election as “slate” candidates. They had a more hands on role than anyone within the ERS council.
I do not and will not apportion blame – We all fought on the same side and we lost! We must now move on.
There are other campaigns (Lords Reform, Votes @ 16 and the increased participation of women and ethnic candidates) to be won. Look forward with the lessons of the past as a guide.
I am standing in this election, and I am standing because I have a genuine belief in reform – Not reform of the Society, but reform of our electoral system.
I have cast my vote for those candidates who I believe share my views, some are existing Council members and some are “Slate”, others are neither. My vote has gone to fellow Lib Dems and some whose politics is probably as far away from mine as can be. I hope that, when others cast theirs, they do so with the Society’s best interests at heart. A united society is the only way we can achieve our goals. Factions and in-fighting will not help the cause. I hope all candidates, successful or otherwise, will bear this in mind.
I am more than happy to discuss my views with any members of the Society, my contact details are in the manifesto booklet.
John Heyworth.
ERS Council Candidate.
Rochdale.
@ Keith
Slight correction: The official yes campaign had ZERO input on the reform cat video so shouldn’t even be given credit for that!
Tbh, I’ve heard too many conflicting accounts on who was responsible for commanding the campaign and making the terrible decisions. All I know is that the moment it transformed from Take Back Parliament to the Yes Campaign it became secretive and shut out all the grassroots creativity that might have saved it.
Keith, can you tell me exactly how much the ERS Council was responsible for and where it wasn’t responsible, who was?
@John Heyworth
” I am standing in this election, and I am standing because I have a genuine belief in reform – Not reform of the Society, but reform of our electoral system.”
Aren’t they the same thing, or least ways if you achieve the latter does it not almost certainly follow on that you have an effect on the former. This is a very important point and by no means trite. It is precisely this case and the unfairness it would cause that was the basis of the No Campaign. Surely as a candidate standing in this election, as I say to all the candidates standing in this election, you must have a more robust answer to this question than the statement you have made?
“The main prize for anyone who controls the ERS is financial – they have by pressure group standards a huge income through their ownership of Electoral Reform Services Ltd which provides electoral services to a vast range of unions and professional bodies. In 2009 the firm had profits of £1.8m (down from £3m the previous year), net assets of £12.4m (including £4.6m in cash) and paid a dividend of £1.7m to the ERS.”
Am I being a bit naive when I suggest that a comment like this worries me about the motivation of some of those running for office? If anyone thinks that control of the finances is the main prize, they have entirely the wrong reason for running and should be stopped. The main prize is a central role in working towards real electoral reform.
@Mark – just to be clear that comment is mine, not that of any of the candidates.
I am not sure there is a problem . All of the candidates want electoral reform, they differ how to get there. The fact that the ERS commands such resources means there is more point in trying to control it that there would be if it was just an ordinary pressure group.
Although I don’t object to the ERS favouring STV (which wouldn’t be my choice) as a democratic organisation keen to empower voters it should surely push for a referendum offering a choice of systems, as New Zealand will do later this year.
As a former Chairman of ERS who has decided to retire after 20 years on the Council, can I nevertheless ask ERS members to support the Society’s existing team who not only have an excellent in turning the ERS round in recent years into th UK leading organisation campaigning for electoral and constitutional reform but also have a strong track record of running the Society successfully.
Without the Society’s recent successes there would not have been much of the funding that the “Yes” campaign was able to draw on. That success was not just achieved by grassroots campaigning. it also needed a huge turnaround of the management of hugely valuable assets of the electoral reform movement. Until recently the ERS was a joke in the national electoral reform movement. In every previous major national electoral reform initiative it has been bypassed with organisations like National Campaign for Electoral Reform in the 1970s. The Society’s campaigning role was my priority in the five years of my chairmanship and helped deliver PR by STV to Scottish local government.
The AV campaign was not one the Society would have askled for. Let’s face it. It was a half measure which most electoral reformers only supported half-heartedly. We knew it was the best that could be delivered via the coalition but that’s not the ERS’s fault.
The retiring council members seeking reelection are Andrew Burn, Keith Sharp, Crispin Allard, Anthony Tuffin, the core of the Society’s officers, Michael Meadowcroft who chaired the Society before me and is an invaluable contributor to the thinking necessary to promote the reform cause, as well as Jim Woodward-Nutt and Keith Underhill who have done valuable work over the years to keep STV up to date with changes in society so that, once the case for really fair voting is made, the rules adopted implement what voters want.
They have the proven skills to run a successful Society and deserve all members’ support.
Colin Rosenstiel
Thanks Colin for bringing some well-timed rational thinking into this. Its easy to jump on a bandwagon, but much of what is written by the so-called ‘reform group’ just looks like empty rhetoric. Many of the people on this slate were actively involve din the Yes to AV campaign, some as employees, yet they blame the ERS Council, who was not running it for its loss. At the same time they propose to abandon the historical commitment to STV (why?- it didn’t stop ERS supporting the AV camapign did it?).
The ERS successfully lobbied for STV in Scottish local elections, and needs to do the same for Local Government in England & Wales. Westminster will always be the last redoubt of FPTP, but we can at least work to bring fairer votes in for elections to the Lords and Councils.
I stand corrected on who produced the Reform Cat Video.
So the yes campaign produced nothing useful at all!
I just had a look again at one of the yes campaign’s awfull leaflets.
It was like an advert for a cure for an embarassing medical problem that we really should not mention in polite society. All we learn is that voting YES is a good thing and it might make some MPs work a bit harder. The lack of arguments and explanations make it easy for people to believe the no campaign’s lies. At least their leaflet was relevent.
I get the same feeling from the slate manefesto. A lot of talk about reform, but a bit low on the specifics. Now we learn that the reform group and the slate are two different entities!
I wonder of the real reform some of them are after (after being paid for working full time for the YES campaign) is reform where the cash goes to.
There is also the question of term limits which will only serve to frustrate the wishes of the electorate to the benefit of new and inexperienced candidates.
The ERS council from what I heard from some of it’s members had no say in the yes campaign (except for how much cash they got!)
A few notes from someone who was both a very frustrated county organizer (covering eight constituencies) during the AV referendum campaign and an ERS Council member and Officer:
• The ERS Council, like Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, provided money for the campaign and, also like the Trust did not run the campaign.
• Yes in May 2011 Ltd was the only organization registered with the Electoral Commission to run the campaign and was entirely responsible for running it.
• Now some of the Yes in May employees think they are qualified to run the ERS.
• The ERS Council and Officers, including me, constantly asked Yes in May to improve the campaign.
• Local activists, including me, also constantly asked Yes in May to improve the campaign.
• In particular, I kept asking Yes in May to release to local organizers the database that I knew it had from the previous Vote for a Change campaign, but it refused to do so. Most local organizers did not even know the database existed but, if they had had it, they would have had a ready-made core of contacts.
• Between about 1998 and 2004, the ERS and its Council were bitterly divided between factions. They voted for candidates in internal elections mainly according to which faction they represented. They often voted on policy and governance issues by factions.
• The factions were dissolved by mutual agreement in 2004 and votes on candidates and issues were decided on their merits. Indeed, there have been few votes in Council since then. Members of the former factions and newer Council members have all worked harmoniously together in the interest of the ERS. They come from all three main political parties and from none.
• This harmony may well be destroyed by the so-called “reform group” contesting the current election as an organized faction.
• Some candidate say they want the ERS to spend its money more wisely and they want it to extend its campaigning to more issues! Before you vote for them if you are an ERS member, I advise you to ask them whether they want the money spent more wisely or on more campaigns.
• One of the problems with the AV campaign was a shortage of money. If anything, perhaps the ERS should have saved money for the referendum by campaigning less in the past on peripheral issues.
ANTHONY TUFFIN
Hon. Treasurer, Electoral Reform Society since 2008
Chairman, Make Votes Count in West Sussex since 1999
Candidate for ERS Council 2011.
I see there is still confusion about why the Society was not in charge of the Yes campaign. The reason quite simply is that the Society was just one contributor and partner — probably the biggest, but certainly not the only one — to a coalition of electoral reform interests, which included Rowntree/Take Back Parliament and Unlock Democracy. The Society’s Council took an early decision — around this time last year — that it was crucial to have a united reform campaign. Imagine the gift to our opponents had the various pro-reform movements been seen to be fractured or in dispute; and so the Society agreed it must be part of the combined movement. We recognised this would give us less direct control over the campaign, but judged — correctly in my view, despite the fate of the referendum — it was paramount to have a united pro-reform campaign.
We had staff seconded; and our CE was in senior role, but she joined in October when the die was largely cast in terms of key strategies, structures and tactics. (The Campaign Director was, as has been well-documented elsewhere, John Sharkey.)
For the Society, I got agreement that several Council members would be members of an Advisory Council to the campaign, but this met only about four times during the campaign and was mainly a briefing and update from the various campaign directors. I regret that the Advisory Council did not have more teeth, but that was not clear until late on.
These Council elections will definitely bring fresh people in — several current members are not re-standing, including Colin Rosensteil who has added his own posting to this debate — and so the vacancies are there to be filled by new people. My personal hope is for a combination of continuity and new Council members as the best way to help our recently renewed staff team take the argument forward.
And whoever gets onto the Council, there is an argument which is still to be won, and which will be won. It may now be the Lords and English local government before Westminster, but the case against FPTP is as strong as ever and will be resurrected next time there is a blatantly undemocratic election result. We just need to be ready — and we have now learned from this referendum and those lessons are being embedded into forward resourcing and plans.
Two final points: 1) without being hung up on systems, let’s ensure we campaign for an electoral system which gives power to the voter rather than the political establishment; which allows for diversity; which devolves and shares rather than concentrates power; and yes, which delivers proportionate results. And the system which delivers that remains STV and that’s why we support it. 2) I agree with Mark V in finding the apparent motivation of ‘vote for me so we can get our hands on the money’ questionable and even mildly distasteful. I remember campaigning when the Society had literally only hundreds a year to spend — it’s the cause that counts, not just the money. If you’re after the money, try the lottery.
Keith Sharp
Electoral Reform Society, Vice Chair (since 2009)
Current candidate for Council
I had no idea until very recently that the membership of ERS had increased so dramatically, or even that there was a “free membership” policy for new members. The danger of entryism is real. The very fact that anyone is even considering proposing to destroy the main purpose of the ERS (Special Resolution 1) is alarming to say the least. Anybody who does not support STV should resign from the ERS immediately, and those who proposed Special Resolution 1 have a lot of explaining to do.
The elections at ERS are both interesting and sad.
Looking at many of the people and some of the issues brought up, you wonder if this is also not a ‘Bring back Ken Ritchie’ group. If that group gets in, what price Ken as President?
Now I agree that there are likely to be confidentiality agreements all over the place dealing with his leaving. I’d certainly like to see more of the evidence and also the reason that the police were apparently interviewing staff.
Yes, it is time to move on although I do not personally think that Katie Ghose is doing anything worthwhile although that might just be me. Certainly the staff who were there during the upheavala are still there.
Now as to the reform group. Many of them were full-time in the campaign whilst the ERS merely provided money. It is worth saying take a look at http://stvaction.org.uk/
To turn round and say it was ERS’s fault is perhaps rewriting history.
The central fault of the ERS Council has been to allow the free membership and the encoragement thereby of entryism. The prize looks suspiciously like entryism to me in order to get one’s hands on the money. Is it a coincidence that some people have suggested a merger with Unlock Democracy?
Anyway, the Yes in May staff think they can now run ERS. If it is anything like the shambles I saw then perhaps the end is in sight for ERS. Again persistent rumours state that Electoral Reform Services Ltd are trying to go independant and sever the link in the light of the chaos. Is this true? If that is the case then ERS will certainly not have its cash-pile much longer.
OK so it is easy to be critical. So, what action am I taking:
1 I am voting against the reform candidates and urging everyone else so to do;
2 I am hoping they will be defeated and that a new Council will try to complete sorting out the existing staff and issues;
3 However, if this doesn’t happen and the reform slate is re-elected and Ken becomes Chair and Electoral Reform Services Ltd leave then it will be a rump organisation with no money and a new organisation will be needed;
4 In that case, I will invite other people to help set up a new version of ERS with a continuation of its academic bias free from the arrant factionalism;
5 In the case that people take ERS to court over the way it is running the election – old members getting and not getting votes and lapsed menbers being told they can get free votes but not – then I shall contribute to a legal case.
Personally, I think the whole mess is doing such harm that any AGM should be cancelled until the existing staff and Council have at least got the grace to sort out the membership list.
Andy,
As a member of its Management Board, I am certainly not aware of any desire on the part of the leadership of Unlock Democracy to merge with ERS. We might be troubled by any move to broaden the remit of ERS, but that isn’t for us to interfere with.
But, from the perspective of an outsider to ERS (I was a member some years ago but was never active and allowed my membership to lapse), I would ask the same questions as I would ask of any candidate for office looking for my vote. Why are you asking for my vote, and what will you do if you get elected? I’m not entirely sure that I’m comfortable with some of the answers that I’m reading, but as it doesn’t directly impact on me, I won’t be taking sides…
@Andy “Again persistent rumours state that Electoral Reform Services Ltd are trying to go independant and sever the link in the light of the chaos. Is this true? If that is the case then ERS will certainly not have its cash-pile much longer.”
I am not sure I understand this. Don’t the ERS own the majority of voting shares in Electoral Reform Services Ltd? How could they ‘sever the link’ ?
@John Cartwright
“Anybody who does not support STV should resign from the ERS immediately”
Just as well I’ve never joined then!
To coin a phrase – it depends what you mean by support. I’m surely not alone in supporting any form of PR that isn’t actually worse than FPTP, while not favouring STV as my first choice.
I believe that what STV stands for is a very basic and fundamental Human Right – the right in a Representative Democracy to control one’s own vote in a way that leads to close representation of what one believes in. I am not interested in any shoddy substitute form of democracy. If anyone attacks that basic Human Right, I am even more opposed to them than I am to the BNP.
I have been a member of ERS since 1956 and I am getting very tired of Entryists who contest the Society’s elections. I no longer vote for anyone who is not prepared to confirm their support for STV. ERS should have an Associate Member category for people who are prepared to work with us but do not support STV, because they believe that the way we vote, or the order in which we vote, should be controlled by a Party hierarchy or for some other reason. I am a supporter of some campaigns that these people are involved in but that does not mean that I have to dip the ERS till to support my campaigns.
Too many irrelevances have been put forward over many years. The inevitable result has been the de-prioritisation of STV. If we had been spared half of those, STV would have been achieved long ago.
I think more pro-AV adocates need to consider the possibility that the British public simply didn’t like AV. I would argue that the timing of the referendum and the choice of AV (both decisions made by the coalition government) are at least as significant as the actual handling of the campaign.
There does seem to be a strong series of echoes from the damaging and divisive period from 1998 onwards when ERS was enfeebled through faction-fighting.
I have voted for a selection of candidates because they are (in my view) the best people for the job – and certainly not because they’re a part of X or Y faction. Part of the damage a dozen years ago was caused by entrenchment on both sides. In any case, life has moved on.
I do find myself agreeing with John Cartwright on this.
Derek Young, I have no idea why Ken Ritchie ceased to be Chief Executive of the ERS. I would not have voted for him if his post had been subject to annual election.
Mike Bird mentions “candidates that do not refer to AV”. Surely it is more significant whether candidates refer to or do not refer to STV? I supported and voted for YES to AV but I only supported AV as a means of getting voters used to preference voting in the hope that they would want preference voting PR (STV). I have no objection to Parties presenting their candidates in a donkey vote order of their own choosing, on an STV ballot paper.
What about the people who voted NO to AV on grounds of conscience because they could not see it leading to STV? I have considerable respect for them. I would like them to have an opportunity to tell advocates of FPTP that a large number of people voted NO because PR is what was wanted and is required. I would also like to see a petition in support of these people. Parties that use FPTP to maintain power through an unfair fight need to have their comfort zone disturbed. Bleating about reform being impossible for a generation is not enough.
I have studied the results of the STV election for the City of Edinburgh Council. 30 Councillors were elected in 3 member wards and 28 in 4 member wards. In the 3 member wards all places were won by parties capable of winning in FPTP elections. In the 4 member wards the Green Party won some seats, more than their percentage share of the votes but less than all small parties’ share of the votes. Overall, the percentage of seats won by the Greens was lower than their percentage share of the votes. I have not studied the results in the rest of Scotland but in Edinburgh it is clear that small parties can be denied representation by the use of 3 member wards. My Edinburgh results have not been independently confirmed but, on the basis of what I know so far, I would not be able to support a vindictive con trick to damage small parties. I would have liked to have raised this matter at a Conference, in Scotland, to mark the first anniversary of the STV elections but Ken Ritchie seemed anxious to talk down any suggestion that small parties might have been disadvantaged. I wonder whether ERS did a detailed study of all the Scottish results and I would like to have access to these results.
.
When FPTP leads to stalemate at Westminster, STV could be used to elect a Coalition with all MPs who support a coalition having a right to vote to elect Ministers or Ministerial Teams. We could have some Ministerial Teams with a Conservative bias, some with a New Labour bias and some with a LibDem bias. Policies could be coordinated through a Ministry for The Budget and Finance. I made a similar suggestion to a consultation on Scottish Devolution many years ago but AMS was chosen instead. The two largest Parties have far too much power already, there is no reason why small parties should have to dance to the tune of one or other of them.
Do the proposers of Special Resolution 4 intend to sack Council members immediately AFTER they have been democratically elected by members?
Jim halcrow is correct. Too many irrelevant add ons