Why at a time of increasing disengagement from the political process in a democratic society, are British citizens in general not more actively encouraged, or indeed inspired in the case of the younger generation, to vote?
The latest example of likely low turnout from the effect of a lack of engagement with the British electorate, would seem to concern the new elections planned in November for Police & Crime Commissioners (PCCs) and for which the Electoral Reform Society is currently projecting a turnout of less than 20%.This would be even less than the poor turnout of 31% for the local elections in May, which itself was down from the 35% turnout in 2008 (see Electoral Commission report – 2012-english-locals-election-report-web).
The PCC election process, therefore, does not currently present a good example of local democracy in action unless actual voter turnout levels on the day prove otherwise. As for the May 2012 local government elections, however, should turnout again be poor the local electorate will still live with the ?democratic? outcome; they will keep their democratic right to choose to vote or not, irrespective of turnout levels.
This does not mean that low turnouts are acceptable in a democratic society and the question is how to improve matters and particularly for the younger generation? Social media springs to mind where 18 – 24 year olds are concerned and it has already been noted that twice as many of this generation have subscribed to Facebook as have registered to vote. It is interesting then to compare differing articles on Why social media will solve the problem of local voter apathy countered by why Social media cannot solve the problem of local disengagement.
Archive for the ‘Voting rights’ Category
New Clause 3 for Overseas Voting Rights withdrawn!
vendredi, juin 29th, 2012The New Clause 3 brought up and read a second time before being subsequently withdrawn by Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con), during the 27th June Commons debate on the Electoral Registration & Administration Bill, would have removed the 15 year qualifying period for British citizens overseas altogether, so that all British citizens could qualify as overseas voters, regardless of when they were last resident in the UK.
The main problem identified and leading to withdrawal of the New Clause 3, was in requiring Electoral Registration Officers to maintain the same integrity of information on qualified overseas voters in the electoral register, as the Electoral Registration & Administration Bill requires for qualified domestic voters. Currently there is no requirement to keep electoral records of overseas voters once they have exceeded their 15 year qualifying period. It would, therefore, be difficult for an electoral registration officer to « promote who is entitled to register as an overseas voter, which in the Bill is a positive duty. »
However, there was no mention in this debate of the role and responsibility of the Electoral Commission, which has in the past been the focus of efforts to reach out to unregistered but qualified overseas voters via www.aboutmyvote.co.uk and associated promotional activities around election time.
The difficulties facing Electoral Registration Officers as required by the Electoral Registration & Administration Bill still have to be resolved for overseas voters , even with the current 15 year qualifying period remaining as it is. Since other countries seem to manage this process very well, what makes it so difficult for the UK?
http://www.votes-for-expat-brits.com/Sign-up-Poll.phpMr
Mr Clifton-Brown had previously argued well that:
« The House and the British people should take no pride in the fact that so few citizens living abroad are registered to vote. »
« In most other countries, both developed and emerging, voting rights for parliamentary elections depend solely on nationality, not on an arbitrary time limit. »
« For a democracy as ancient as ours, it is not an exaggeration to say that it is a stain on our democratic principles that our citizens are placed at such a disadvantage when they have moved abroad compared with citizens from those other countries. »
« There is certainly no lack of interest among British citizens who have lived abroad for more than 15 years. »
He was ably supported in his arguments by Mr Streeter (Devon South West) (Con), Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con), Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con), Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con) and Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con), although it was Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con) who first raised the important question:
« Should someone have the responsibility for trying to recruit these people to register in the same way that domestically resident people like myself are if they are entitled to vote? »
This latter intervention provided the opportunity for Mr Heath (Somerton & Frome) (Lib Dem) to respond on behalf of the government in identifying problems:
« For instance, there is no current requirement for registration officers to keep copies of previous registers, except in so far as they need them to check registrations for the 15 years provided for under the current legislation. So under the current terms of checking we would not have the material to check whether someone ever had been an elector?a properly registered person?in this country. »
« What we have done in the Bill is improve the overseas voting process. One significant part of that is the proposal to extend the electoral timetable for UK parliamentary elections from 17 to 25 days, which will make a significant difference to those who are registered in terms of enabling them to vote. »
« The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who is not in his place, raised a cogent question: what are registration officers to do to identify all those abroad who might be qualified to vote? Putting an onus on them similar to the responsibility we are placing on them in this Bill to seek out everyone who could possibly be qualified to vote would provide an insuperable problem for them if applied to overseas electors. »
Mr Clifton-Brown responded:
« Of course everybody wants the integrity of the electoral register to be maintained to the utmost degree. Only those who are eligible to register should register. We all understand that. The Deputy Leader of the House asked how an electoral registration officer would promote who is entitled to register as an overseas voter, which in the Bill is a positive duty. »
« May I suggest to the Deputy Leader of the House and to the Committee a practical way of dealing with the issue? The hon. Gentleman should table an amendment on Report or an amendment should be tabled in another place to take powers to extend but not reduce the 15-year period at a time when the Government are satisfied that the registration process is robust and maintains the integrity of the electoral register. »
« I suggest that the Deputy Leader of the House table an amendment to take a power to extend the 15 years when the Government are satisfied that those measures are in place. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my new clause. »
Why Peers Cannot Vote In General Elections
dimanche, juin 10th, 2012English Common law has long provided that Peers in the House of Lords cannot vote at Parliamentary elections. Since 1999 (and the House of Lords Act) it is the fact of being a member of the second chamber that actually prevents Peer from voting. However, Hereditary Peers who are excluded from membership of the House of Lords are able to vote, under the terms of the 1999 Act. Members of the House of Lords can vote in all other elections (European, local, referenda etc.).
Matthew Purvis, House of Lords Research Clerk, has provided (via his Twitter account @mtthwprvs) a link to Library Note LLN 2012/022 ? Members of the House of Lords: Voting at Parliamentary Elections ? which provides the background information.
From the voting rights standpoint and according to Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, with regard to this incapacity to vote at general elections, and particularly how it relates to the European Convention on Human Rights:
?Parliament consists of the three estates of the Sovereign, the Lords and the Commons. The Lords sit in their own right. The Commons are elected by the remainder of the estate of commoners to represent them in Parliament. There was therefore no case for the Lords to vote to elect representatives, since they were able to sit in Parliament anyway.?
In terms of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), he added that:
?Article 3 Protocol 1 of the ECHR provides for a requirement to hold regular, free and fair elections, and the Strasbourg courts have taken this to include the individual right to vote. However that right to vote is not absolute and limitations may be imposed on it. The fact that Members of the House of Lords have a voice in Parliament makes it legitimate to deprive them of a right to have their voice also heard through their elected representative in the Commons.?
The above ruling by the ECHR could be viewed as a favourable legal precedent for old soldier Harry Shindler, who currently has his voting rights case before this Strasbourg court, having lost his right to vote after 15 years overseas and, therefore, the right to have his voice heard through his elected representative in the Commons.
In defence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
dimanche, mars 4th, 2012The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has been widely attacked by British politicians of all parties as well as in the British media and is currently under pressure from the British government to reform, not helped by its most recent ruling in favour of the suspected terrorist Abu Qatada for which it was openly criticised in a recent debate in the House of Commons.
However, the Justice Secretary Kenneth Clark has said that Abu Qatada will be released because he is not accused of a crime in Britain and the decision has nothing to do with the ECHR. This is because a British judge has now ordered the release of Abu Qatada on the basis of how long he has been held without charge, making it difficult to argue a case for his deportation. His comments followed the ECHR ruling that Abu Qatada could not be deported to his native Jordan to face trial on terrorism charges because evidence to be used against him was obtained by torture. The Justice Secretary added that the British newspapers that attack the ECHR, attack the ECHR all the time when actually the judgment to which they are objecting (i.e. to release Abu Qatada) was by a British judge.
Writing in the expat weekly telegraph of February 15 ? 21, 2012 (The Rule of Law is Diminished by Furore over Abu Qatada), Peter Osborne also thought it time that the case was heard for the defence of the ECHR, its decision in the Abu Qatada case having even been attacked as an outrageous assault on British sovereignty. He took issue with the Strasbourg Court having been accused of being an alien institution, hostile to British history, law, freedom and our national identity. The Commons debate of the previous week he described as a day of shame for Parliament, once famed as the cockpit of freedom and justice. MPs were reduced to combining to demand that Britain flout the ECHR.
Mr Osborne reminded us that there is no institution more British than the ECHR, inspired by Sir Winston Churchill, eager in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Holocaust to export the British system of fairness and decency. He, therefore, ensured that its founding document was drafted by a British politician, David Maxwell Fyfe, later to become a Conservative Lord Chancellor. Every single one of the great ideas that were embodied in the European Convention ? freedom from torture, restraint on the power of the state, freedom under law ? was an ancient British principle transferred on to the European stage.
It is also more than 60 years since Churchill made his famous Iron Curtain speech in Fulton, Missouri, in which he defended the Western tradition of the rule of law. He said that we must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which??through Magna Carta, the Bill of rights, habeas corpus, trial by jury and the English Common Law, find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.
Peter Osborne concluded that we should instead be proud that the ECHR, an institution so profoundly British in its inspiration, has refused to send an Arab, Islamic fundamentalist (however terrible his alleged crimes) to Jordan, where he might be tortured or sent to jail on the basis of evidence obtained from a torture victim.
Speech by Prime Minister on ECHR at Council Of Europe
vendredi, février 10th, 2012The full text of the 25th January, 2012 speech by Prime Minister David Cameron to the Council of Europe on reforming the European Court of Human Rights(ECHR), can be found here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/25/cameron-speech-european-court-human-rights-full?CMP=twt_gu
On the difficulties faced by the British government in dealing with terrorism e.g. following the decision of the ECHR the previous week to block the deportation to Jordan of the suspected terrorist Abu Qatada, the Court had rather inconveniently for his speech already found in favour of the government on the most important point at issue. It had concluded that diplomatic assurances from Jordan would be sufficient to ensue that the cleric would not be at risk of ill-treatment.
According to Joshua Rozenberg writing in the Law Society Gazette of 26th January, 2012 (UK Courts have misunderstood a fundamental provis Rights Act), if the government had lost on this point it would not have been able to rely on memorandums of understanding with Jordan or other countries.
The point of contention with the British government was the risk that evidence against Abu Qatada had been obtained by torturing witnesses, ensuring any trial he might face unfair the judges concluded.
Criticism of ECHR not Based on Fact
vendredi, janvier 27th, 2012The criticism of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) by the British Prime Minister is wrong and panders to popular opinion without an understanding of the facts, says Sir Nicolas Bratza QC, the new president of the Strasbourg-based court.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/
9034397/David-Camerons-criticism-of-ECHR-not-based-on-facts-says-top-judge.html
Writing under the headline Britain should be defending European justice, not attacking it, he added: The UK can be proud of its real contribution to this unique system and its influence in bringing about effective human rights protection throughout the European continent.
However, in his speech on the 25th January, 2011 (see Telegraph article below) to the Council of Europe which the UK currently chairs, Prime Minister David Cameron was addressing what appears in certain sections of the press to be a popular cause with the British people, in calling for reform of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9037045/David-Camerons-stand-on-EU-human-rights-reform.html
Last week the ECHR was again criticised after it ruled that the radical Islamist Abu Qatada, cannot be extradited from the UK to Jordan as he would not receive a fair trial on terrorism charges. Mr Cameron claims the 47 members of the Council have a once-in-a-generation chance to improve the way we enhance the cause of human rights, freedom and dignity. He addresses his critics by saying that belief in human rights is part of the British character. We are not and never will be a country that walks on by while human rights are trampled into the dust.
However, he could face a difficult task convincing members to return more power on human rights decisions to national courts:
?The 160,000 backlog of human rights cases that had built up within the ECHR can be also traced to the increase in members of the Council of Europe following the breakup of the Soviet Union.
?The UK has lost 3 out of 4 cases brought before the Court since its establishment after WWII and only 8 cases brought against Britain last year (less than 1% of the total) were defended successfully; however, most recently and concerning the extradition of two alleged murderers to the US, the judges decided in the favour of the UK.
?In the case of Abu Qatada one underlying issue seems to be torture and the related inadmissability of evidence obtained through torture, the latter that might well have undermined the UK?s case for extradition. Kenneth Clark the Justice Minister has also suggested that the ECHR should concentrate on more major issues impacting human rights such as torture.
Lords Debate on Electoral Registration – Overseas Voter Discrimination
vendredi, janvier 13th, 2012Click on this video link to the January 12th, 2012 debate in the House of Lords on Electoral Registration in which the issue of discrimination against overseas voters was raised, as well as the ineffectiveness of the postal voting system which results in overseas voters being ?basically disenfranchised every time an election is held?.
Fast forward the timer 42 minutes, to hear Lord Lexden?s view that British overseas voters are essentially discriminated against, compared with the way other advanced democracies treat their expatriates? voting rights.
On the ineffectiveness of the postal voting system which particularly impacts overseas voters, Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws who spoke after Lord Lexden said that ? ?. what I really want us to consider is the business of postal voting because I think that it should be revisited. If we are going to look at ways of making our electoral system better, we have to revisit it. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires Governments to hold free elections that will,
?ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature?.
That is important whether it be for local elections, European elections or our general elections. In 2006, a motion was placed before the Council of Europe that there was enough fraud involved in the system of postal voting in the UK to make us fall foul of our duties under Article 3. I am afraid that we were criticised by the Council of Europe for the system that we have in operation, so it should be revisited ».
Lord Astor who spoke after Baroness Kennedy then wished ?to concentrate on postal voting, particularly postal voting from overseas? He went on to say that ?perhaps I may quote a counting officer at the last election who said, ?The timescale is too tight to allow sufficient time for overseas electors to complete and return their ballot papers. They are basically being disfranchised every time an election is held. One overseas elector called on polling day as he had just received his postal vote, despite an early turnaround and issue by airmail?.
Lord Astor concluded ?that is the problem, and as my noble friend Lord Lexden said, there were only just over 30,000 overseas voters on the register at the last election out of 5 million British citizens who live abroad, of whom at least 3.5 million are probably eligible to vote. We ought to do something in this country to encourage them to take part in the electoral system. Many people go abroad or work abroad, but that does not mean to say that they have lost interest in this country. They read English newspapers on the internet every morning, and indeed many of them want to return to this country at some point in the future. They should be able to take part in our electoral system.?
The British Government & the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
vendredi, décembre 30th, 2011Britain currently holds the rotating chairmanship of the 47 member-state European Council, which oversees the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). It is using this position, in alliance with Switzerland, to put pressure on the ECHR, which is based in Strasbourg but is not a court of the European Union, to either reform or jeopardise public and political support for the European Convention on Human Rights it oversees.
The British government is already upset by the ECHR ruling that the UK should allow all prisoners to vote and its overturning of some British immigration rulings. Even in the on-going Harry Shindler versus the British government, Expatriate Voting Rights claim in the ECHR, the government has also pointed out to the Court that the Right to Universal Suffrage does not yet form part of the European Electoral heritage (which ironically enough can be traced back to a previous British government negotiation).
Currently the ECHR has a backlog of over 150,000 cases to hear and appealing a case to the Court can delay final judgement by two years or more. Therefore, one option being considered is to put a time limit on cases in order to reduce the number pending appeal, as the longer running ones pass this limit and then expire. This could then open the way for new rules including say a filter system to reduce the number of cases and allow the Court to concentrate instead on more major issues such as Freedom & Torture but not comparatively minor compensation claims, according to Kenneth Clark, the British government Justice Secretary.
Given the above, it seems perverse that the British government is contesting the Harry Shindler Expatriate Voting Rights case in the ECHR, on a major and self-evidently democratic issue such as the Right to Universal Suffrage within the European electoral heritage.
British Judges & European Court Rulings
vendredi, décembre 23rd, 2011The free movement of goods, services and citizens of member states is guaranteed by treaty within the European Union (EU). However, British politicians remain wary of rulings by judges from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) or the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), impacting legislation in the UK.
Most recently Lord Irvine of Lairg, the former Labour Lord Chancellor who introduced the Human Rights Act, said judges had erroneously assumed that they must comply with the European Court of Human Rights. Parliament had intended them to be free to make their own decisions when it passed the Act, Lord Irvine said in a lecture organised by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law and hosted by the UCL Judicial Institute. Section 2 of the Human Rights Act was pivotal in the relationship between the Courts, Parliament and the ECHR. The Section states that when deciding a human rights issue, the Courts must take account of any judgement of the ECHR which could, however, be paraphrased as have regard to, consider, treat as relevant or bear in mind.
Such independence is evident in the Harry Shindler voting rights claim brought before the ECHR, with the British government defence resting on their counter claim that the right to universal suffrage is not yet considered a basic human right within the European electoral heritage. Another example is the recent judgement against James Preston in his voting rights case against the British government in the High Court in London, which considered that his disenfranchisement after 15 years does not constitute a deterrence to his free movement e.g. to work or live within the European Union.
Britain was also said, in an article in the Times of 16th December 2011, to have won a crucial victory when European judges admitted that they should not overrule the traditional use of hearsay evidence in the criminal courts. In what was hailed in the article as a landmark judgement, the ECHR said that the use of hearsay evidence in criminal trials ? when witnesses cannot attend in person ? did not breach the rights of defendants. This decision averted a clash between the UK Supreme Court and the Strasbourg-based court, which had previously ruled that the use of such evidence was a breach of the right to a fair trial. However, the Grand Chamber, or appeal court, of the European Court of Human Rights, said that the use of hearsay evidence did not automatically breach the human rights of defendants. The appeal court judges, therefore, seemed to step back and acknowledge the importance of local legal systems, in this case that of the UK on appeal by the British government, in the cases of two men jailed in the UK mainly or wholly on the basis of witness statements. There was no breach of article 6 of the Human Rights Convention, which covers the right to a fair trial.
Expat Voter Registration
jeudi, décembre 8th, 2011British political parties in general find it difficult to communicate with the large and widespread British expatriate population and, therefore, to release the full potential of this overseas voter base. That the currently registered number of such overseas voters is estimated at less than 1% of the total is, however, then taken by some as an indication of general apathy, rather than looking further into why this might be so. One such reason of course is that some 50% of this overseas voter base is already excluded by the 15 year rule, which deprives longer term expatriates of the right to vote in the UK. It is argued below that there are further problems of identification, registration and voting with the other 50%, which tend to further reduce the number of overseas voters.
Our political parties are set up to work through their local branches in defined domestic constituencies and, for canvassing purposes, have access to the Electoral Roll of the Electoral Commission, with which by law householders must register details of all those of voting age living within a household. The law is currently being amended to provide for Individual Electoral Registration although whether individuals will still be required by law to register is still not clear.
In contrast, the parties rely on a few politically active volunteers in their international branches to address the overseas voter base and e.g. to recruit members, raise party funds and encourage other British expatriates to register to vote. However, the relatively limited resources of these international branches are further diluted by problems of distance, density and distribution when trying to reach out to and identify their local British expatriate base, not helped by the general lack of consular records of British residents. The broadest communications means of registering overseas voters is then via the website www.aboutmyvote.co.uk operated by the Electoral Commission, which needs to be communicated much more effectively to British expatriates.
The electoral registration form for overseas voters which can be downloaded from www.aboutmyvote.co.uk , states that if you are a British citizen living abroad, as long as you were registered to vote in the UK within the last 15 years, you are then eligible to vote in elections for the UK Parliament and the European Parliament but not in UK local or mayoral elections, or to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly of Wales or the London Assembly. It is not surprising then that the number of British overseas voters registered increased from 13,600 to over 30,000 before the last election in 2010 not least due the higher level interest in national elections, together with the increase in media attention and canvassing activities. However, this still remains a disappointedly low number as far as the politicians in London are concerned.
That said, at first sight it seems quite easy to register by downloading an electoral registration form (for a British citizen living overseas) from www.aboutmyvote.co.uk . You read that you should register to vote as soon as you can, or it may be too late to vote in the next election. However, with the next General Election not until 2015, the natural impulse is to put off registering until closer to the date. If you do decide to register, you are informed that you can vote in one of three ways:
? By post, which is generally ruled out in most cases by the ballot paper not being sent out until 4 working days before election day, and having to be returned completed before voting closes on election day in order to count.
? By proxy, when you ask someone you know and trust to vote on your behalf (although this can still be open to abuse).
? In person, if you are in the UK on election day but you can only vote at the polling station where you are registered to vote in the UK. Also, you cannot vote at your local embassy or consulate (despite this being a common practice for expatriates of some other nations such as France).
The most practical option from the above appears to be by proxy but the overall impression is of a system which does not make it convenient for expatriates to register and/or vote, not least given their special circumstances, the presence of local embassies and/or consulates and the advanced telecommunications means available today.
Indeed, due to advances in travel and telecommunications it is now so much easier for international operations to be run via daily telephone calls, e-mail and video conferencing. As a result, around 750,000 British workers including young talented professionals are currently being posted abroad, while still being supervised and coached by their managers in the UK. The increasing use of such temporary global workers whose average time spent overseas is 5.4 years, is blurring the traditional definition of an expat according to Dave Isley, Head of NatWest International Personal Banking. In theory, these global workers should also register as overseas voters but this is unlikely, given the inconvenience and average length of their assignments, and they are more likely to remain on the domestic Electoral Register, again contributing to a rather false sense of general apathy amongst overseas voters, due only to their low registration rate.