Paul Tyler writes… Voter engagement and Votes at 16: progress!

Today, the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee is doing something I don’t recall any other Committee doing before it. It is publishing a report in draft, and asking for public feedback before making final recommendations.

In announcing this initiative Graham Allen, the Committee’s Chair, writes, “we raise issues around re-building our political parties, their funding, conduct of MPs, how the Media can work to improve public involvement, and how we can restore a sense of excite around our democracy”. These are all clearly crucial issues for Liberal Democrats.

Despite being dominated by Labour and Conservative MPs, there are suggestions in the draft report of a fairly radical prospectus to increase participation. They even took evidence and considered the thorny matter of electoral reform but – unsurprisingly – did not agree a recommendation in this area. Specifically, they call on all parties to consider the following issues for inclusion in their 2015 manifestos:

• The civic and legal duty of all citizens to register to vote
• Registering to vote closer up to or on the day of an election
• Online voting
• Extended or weekend voting, or a public holiday for voting
• Compulsory voting
• All-postal voting
• Extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds

On the last in that list, we made significant progress this week. With Liberal Democrat and Crossbencher colleagues in the Lords, I had tabled amendments to the Wales Bill suggesting that the franchise ought to be extended for Welsh Assembly elections and for any referendum on tax-raising powers. Working with Jenny Randerson, our Minister in the Wales Office, we secured a very positive response.

Of course, Liberal Democrats support Votes at 16 for all UK elections – if it were up to us we would extend the franchise comprehensively tomorrow. The Conservative Party remains formally opposed. Yet even they were unable to resist the remorseless logic of an extended franchise in a referendum in Wales, after the successful Scottish experience.

The UK Government has committed to bring forward amendments such that the Welsh Assembly can enable votes at 16 in a tax-raising referendum, if it wishes. This will reflect the precedent in Scotland, where the Scottish Parliament set the referendum franchise. There is strong cross-party (save for Conservative) support for Votes at 16 in the Assembly, so there is a very real prospect that they will use this power. Jenny Randerson was instrumental and determined in securing this agreement, which Adrian Masters, the Political Editor of ITV Wales, hailed as “a significant symbolic step for Welsh devolution and for supporters of votes for 16 year olds”. Praise indeed!

You can read the Select Committee’s full, draft report on voter engagement online here (pdf), and you have until 9th January 2014 to submit evidence via the online form. Our Lib Dem Parliamentary Committee will certainly participate. We will keep an eye on comments to see if we should reflect any LDV readers’ points in our own response.

In addition, I am hoping that the Select Committee will examine the cross-party draft Bill (pdf) on party funding we published in May 2013.

* Lord Tyler is the Liberal Democrat Lords Spokesperson for Political and Constitutional Reform.

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

8 Comments

  • Votes at 16 is fine. Compulsory voting is not. Some people’s religion forbids them from voting. People who are forced into voting are not going to be an informed electorate. And as for online voting: it’s not technically possible to get it secure AND verifiable AND anonymous – I reckon verifiable would be the first to go.

  • I feel votes for 16 year olds should be implemented for elections 2020

    No for compulsion borders on stupid in my opinion what are we going to do open non voter prisons. Make Westminster more fair and people believe a vote makes a difference they will vote

    Number one biggest point the three main parties are all so close together on some points as the saying goes you can’t get a fag paper between them, what’s to vote about

    Examples Trident, Global warming and deciding for us, false promises facts on the NHS, alleged support for higher minimum wage but in five years. The list is endless who ever says compulsion is a good idea should first ask what stops voting now.

    If you then take the 4 UK nations if figures are to be believed England has less per head of the four and if you live outside of London many will feel that Westminster favour london because it’s where they spend most of the time

    This is meant as constructive look why voters don’t vote forget compulsion

  • No to compulsion.

  • Compulsion gets the relationship between voter and government entirely the wrong way round.
    Governments should be in fear of the voter. The voter (or non-voter) should not be compelled by government.

    As for the age of voters. I have never seen a suggestion that there should be an upper age limit. Why not?
    In the place where Paul Tyler works the average age is 70 (according to Paul’s recent blog on the subject of the age of members of the House of Lords) and there are plenty of people over 90. They do not worry themselves with any sort of elections there, which is why they should all be thrown out and replaced by a democratic body.

  • Dave G Fawcett 15th Nov '14 - 1:46pm

    I see nothing inherently wrong with the introduction of on-line voting as a tool to use with other forms of electoral procedure. Surely it is not beyond the wit and wisdom of modern society to develop a secure,interactive system for casting a vote. After all the banks can do it for their customers.

    For me, the big no-no would be all-postal voting. Whilst it has a place as another tool, it is perhaps easier to subvert than a good on-line system would be. We should however be looking at electronic voting at polling stations. In the end, any system is open to tampering and fraud if not policed properly.

  • Richard Underhill 28th Feb '18 - 4:47pm

    “The reduction of the voting age to 16 in the United Kingdom was first given serious consideration on 15 December 1999, when the House of Commons considered in Committee an amendment proposed by Simon Hughes to the Representation of the People Bill. This was the first time the reduction of a voting age below 18 had ever been put to a vote in the Commons. The Government opposed the amendment”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Hughes
    AUSTRIA: “The voting age was reduced when the Bill’s provisions came into force on 1 July 2007. Austria thus became the first member of the European Union, and the first of the developed world democracies, to adopt a voting age of 16 for all purposes. Lowering the voting age encouraged political interest in young people in Austria. More sixteen and seventeen year olds voted than eighteen to twenty-one year olds in Austria.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_age

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarRoger Billins 21st Jul - 10:05am
    It is annoying and stupid to stay our vote held up at Bury, at 3%. This is not a propaganda sheet aimed at children. With...
  • User AvatarP.J. 21st Jul - 9:41am
    @Callum Robertson I am not aware of any poling been done and that is why I said IMO. MO comes from knocking on hundreds of...
  • User AvatarFiona 21st Jul - 9:35am
    Alex, I get what you are saying, and yes, what Labour did was far more damaging, and it isn't accurate or fair to say we...
  • User AvatarP.J. 21st Jul - 9:27am
    @Wera 'using the empty houses 'we’ve' already got' When did my property become jointly owned. Since when did the LibDems endorse taking private property into...
  • User AvatarPeter Martin 21st Jul - 9:14am
    I'm not sure I believed this Guardian article at the time but it is looking much more like Natalie Nougayrède was quite right now. The...
  • User AvatarDavid Raw 21st Jul - 8:35am
    @william fowler. "Giving private tenants almost confiscatory rights". There you go again, distorting what was said and echoing the Tory right wing press. As I...