Our democracy is under sustained attack. Repeated scandals and corruption have hollowed out trust, while powerful men who hate our democracy – from Silicon Valley to the Kremlin – undermine our social fabric and institutions. It is nothing short of a national crisis.
It has therefore been deeply frustrating to see the litany of lost opportunities in the government’s “Representation of the People Bill”. What is called for is transformation – to restore trust and make our brittle, fragile democracy more resilient. This bill does not meet that moment.
In all its 186 pages, it manages to avoid measures that would meaningfully improve accountability of politicians, to stamp out corruption, or to address the unfairness of our backwards, outdated voting system. The elephant in the room – of record levels of public distrust and anger with our political system – remains, it seems, totally ignored.
There are, of course, some worthwhile measures like automatic voter registration and more support for candidates. Most significantly, the Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for votes at sixteen for decades, and we are proud to have helped secure a provision that delivers this. But as I said in my speech “As young people approach the ballot box for the first time in the next election, we must ensure that they – and everyone in our country, feel confident…. Confident that they won’t be bombarded by disinformation. Confident that their vote will count. Confident that the system they are being asked to be a part of is fit for purpose.” I can’t honestly say this bill delivers on those things.
So where does that leave our party?
Ed and I are determined that Liberal Democrats use this bill to champion the changes our democracy really needs – on which we Liberals have a unique and proud track record. Fundamental to so many problems we face as a country is that we have a system which few trust, which rewards cronyism and which is vulnerable to the whims of foreign regimes and elites.
We will show what defending our democracy really looks like, including by campaigning in and out of the chamber to throw out a voting system that was archaic a century ago, and which allows parties to take voters for granted. PR is not just some Lib Dem pet project – it is absolutely essential for rescuing our democracy and making it fit for a modern society. Until that happens voters’ preferences will be ignored, and distrust will deepen. We should remember that 60% of the public now want a new system, and who can blame them?
We will make the case – including through amendments to the bill – that we do not have to tolerate endless scandal and corruption in our politics. It cannot be overstated how devastating the drumbeat of scandals, including the Mandelson and Epstein saga this year have been for public trust. By breaking systems that reward cronyism, including through an elected second chamber, and by injecting more accountability, such as enshrining the ministerial code in law, or allowing voters to recall and sack sex-pest MPs we can start a badly-needed reset in our political culture.
Perhaps most importantly, and where this bill is most wanting, is on the pressing need to tackle foreign interference. The case of Nathan Gill should stand as a stark warning of the levels of interference that we now face. The bill leaves far too much room for manoeuvre. Foreign regimes and their political elites should have no business in our democracy whatsoever. As a minimum, we are arguing that the government must introduce an absolute ban on donations from those who’ve served the administrations of a foreign regime – ruling out people like Elon Musk from getting their hands on our democracy.
I have one plea to our members. Nothing will help our cause more than ensuring Liberal Democrats win big in the upcoming May elections. In conversations with Labour MPs, fear of defeat at the ballot box is key in motivating them to go further and be more ambitious – including on this issue. We know that many key votes on the bill will take place after the locals. What could be a stronger message than for the only party serious about reforming our democracy to beat Labour and the Tories, and to challenge Trump loving Reform UK – who would break key pillars of our democracy? Every door you knock on, every leaflet delivered, will strengthen our hand as we tell the government to finally show some courage.
P.S. You can see our amendments at time of writing here. There will be many more.
* Lisa Smart is the Liberal Democrat MP for Hazel Grove and the party's Home Affairs spokesperson
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A medieval street at the heart of Swansea's social life
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
More missing scientists: Remembering the GEC-Marconi deaths panic of the late Eighties
Makerfield: we can breathe again.
John Bicknell
expats
Andrew Tampion
David Le Grice
nigel hunter
20 Comments
Why another referendum? We are a parliamentary democracy where decisions are made by the elected representatives of the people. Parliament should determine the voting system as it has done numerous times. And why offer any voting system other than STV? Party policy is clear. Why is Lisa trying to change it?
Don’t be surprised at how little of this resonates with the voting public. Most only venture to the ballot box once every 4 or 5 years; significant numbers do not engage with local government politics or show any interest in it whatsoever. Our voting system isn’t, and never will be, a hot topic, and neither do scandals have any real long-term impact—there were plenty under Blair.
It’ll be the usual stuff that dominates. Folk just aren’t as political as some like to think.
The proposed amendment on banning anyone who has served as a member or advisor of a foreign government from donating to a UK political party or think tank is a crude attempt to target Elon Musk but could have significant unintended consequences. For example, suppose a British subject, born and resident in Belfast – and therefore entitled to Irish citizenship – becomes an advisor to the Irish government and later wishes to make a donation to the SDLP or Sinn Fein…do you really think it should be illegal for him to do that? Seems like you are happy for him to lose his rights if that is the price of stopping Musk.
@Mick: I think the rationale for a referendum (not mentioned in the article but referenced in the amendments to the bill) is that it would give a change to PR much more legitimacy and make the change more permanent, reducing the risk of an unfriendly Government simply using a Parliamentary bill to revert back to FPTP a few years later. Same reasoning as when Labour used referenda to devolve powers to Scotland and Wales back in 1997. Without those referenda it was very plausible that any incoming Tory Government would simply abolish the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments. But after the referenda, that was politically out of the question.
@Joan: Totally agree. We have all sorts of reasons for not liking stuff Elon Musk has done, but an amendment that is obviously designed to target him in this way seems vindictive and not the kind of thing the law should be used for.
Reason why the reluctance to hold a referendum on voting change is fairly simple – turnout will be poor as most folk don’t give a brass monkeys.
This bill would be the ideal opportunity to allow for a full scale trial of electronic voting for registered blind individuals. The vote is supposed to be independent and in secret, accept it never has been for me or most other blind people. I can already hear the cries of security, which is why I’m not asking for a full shift, but a trial limited to the 350,000 registered blind and visually impaired individuals. This would allow us to put those claims to the test in a real world situation. Using Apps, telephone and web based voting, might increase voter turnout of those of us for whom the current system takes our independence and right to secrecy away and would test what security could be put in place to prevent attempts to manipulate the new system.
This is what the RNIB says on the subject of accessibility:
https://www.rnib.org.uk/campaign-with-us/support-a-campaign/voting-and-elections/
This Canadian site has some information about how accessible voting is in some other countries.
https://www.cnib.ca/en/support-us/advocate/journey-towards-accessible-elections/accessible-voting-around-world
Yusuf – do you have an estimate for your proposed trial limited to the 350,000 registered blind and visually impaired individuals?
I couldn’t see in the amendments anything about limiting donations from individuals and companies’. Wouldn’t that be a better way of removing corruption from the system? There might have to be different limits depending on at which level the donation is being made. For example a donation of £5,000 to a Local Party would be more important to it than if the donation was made to the national party.
The trouble with trialing electronic voting for blind people nationwide is that you would have to have a device and training in every polling district. Better to try it for everyone in specific local elections.
@MichaelBG I would go further and ban any donation by companies. They are either a corrupt way of influencing decisions or a way of avoiding tax by the owner or the management hijacking their shareholders funds.
“We are a parliamentary democracy where decisions are made by the elected representatives of the people.”
So who made the decision for FPTP in the first election?
In any case the precedent was set in 2011 when there was a referendum on the AV system. I personally would have voted for that. I was in Australia at the time so chose not to vote. However, it works well there and would neatly solve the problem of having 5 or more parties who are all capable if winning seats nationally. We’d just number them, or some of them, in order if we wanted to to. The only requirement would be to put at least a “1” or an X against one of them.
Thanks NonConformistRadical I’m not sure as to the cost, I don’t believe the creation of an App for Android/iOS and an accessible secure web site plus a automated telephone line would be particularly expensive. My assumption would be that the biggest part of the expense would be the security systems and the process for registering and ensuring that the person ringing in is the person registered. Added to that is the need to ensure that the information provided to voters e.g. a security number is itself accessible.
Interesting point Peter Davies, I don’t think we’d need to have this done in the traditional way, so when someone used the electronic system their specific location would be tied to their vote and this information would be passed directly to the returning officer for inclusion with the physical counting. I’d envisage votes for, let’s say Manchester Central, to be counted in the normal way, with the electronic votes, probably a couple of hundred added once the others have been counted. I hope that makes sense.
I don’t think an app running on the voter’s own device is viable. It has the same disadvantages as postal voting (it allows bribery or coercion) to which can be added discrimination against those without devices and I’m pretty certain I could think of dozens of ways to cast bogus votes. What would work is a digital ballot paper. A presiding officer would verify identity and hand the voter a device. They would use it to vote and hand it back. The vote would be recorded on write only memory physically sealed within the device.
A monochrome device without internet, bluetooth, USB etc would be very cheap.
@Peter Davies
“What would work is a digital ballot paper. A presiding officer would verify identity and hand the voter a device. They would use it to vote and hand it back.”
How many of these devices do you think you’d need for, say, a round of county council elections – which are the elections taking place in some areas this May?
“A presiding officer would verify identity and hand the voter a device…>
Would this be at the polling station?
It would have to be to avoid anyone being coerced. So we’re really talking about voting machines which in the age of the internet would be voting terminals. The results could be announced within minutes of voting ending.
No more sleepless nights waiting for them to come in.
That would have to be a good thing!
” I would go further and ban any donation by companies….”
I’ve just been reading Paul Holden’s excellent book “The Fraud” about the influence of key figures like Morgan McSweeney and Peter Mandelson. They propelled the rise of Keir Starmer to firstly become Labour leader and later our PM.
All donations to political parties, and to any political grouping such as Labour Together which was run by MMcS should of course comply with legal requirements. It seems the going rate for avoidng them is about 2% – as calculated on a £14,250 fine on undeclared donations of £730,000 to LT.
This £730k didn’t include the cost of ‘volunteers’ who provided their services to LT at the same time as various backers were paying their salaries! Paying well over the odds for advertising on GB News is one way to back Reform without having to worry about the scrutiny of the Electoral Commission.
There are always ways to get around any ban on donations.
Peter Davies, don’t forget I suggested App, web site and telephone, all 3 together should cover almost everyone’s needs even the digitally excluded, of which there are around 30 per cent blind people. Even those are likely to have a telephone of one kind or another. I’m not against your suggestion, but it wouldn’t enable the deaf-blind to vote, unless it had in built Braille, something which an App/web site would make possible. There’s also the problem of knowing where the polling station is. But thanks to both you and NonConformistRadical for engaging in this discussion. For this upcoming election I’m looking forward to using the McGonagle Reader to vote on my own and in secret for the very first time. I’m actually really excited about the prospect.
“it wouldn’t enable the deaf-blind to vote, unless it had in built Braille” would a built in reader not be sufficient?
Not for the profoundly deaf no. For those Braille is the only option.
Labour seem intent on doing the least on improving our democracy within the parameters of seeming to do something and so caring about it. Democracy fundamentally is about redistributing power and influence from the wealthy to the others. This is why more participatory measures such as Citizens’ Assemblies should be fundamental to any meaningful reform.