Cameron gets his history wrong on referendum thresholds say FULL FACT – are they right?

February 18, 2011

Cameron gets his history wrong on referendum thresholds | Full Fact.

A useful “factcheck” but it doesn’t make absolutely clear the difference between a threshold based on REGISTERED voters and one based on votes actually CAST. Cameron is right in the particulars – his type of threshold based on CAST votes hasn’t been used before in referendums in the UK

The difference is very material. The first is beguilingly democratic yet encourages abstention campaigns designed to discourage people from voting because an abstainer counts as a NO vote. Neither is it at all transparent as to how it works. In Scotland in 1979, on the 60% turnout if my memory serves, Yes needed 83% of the CAST votes to scrape a win over the 40% REGISTERED threshold.

While I would reluctantly accept a threshold based on cast votes, I would be totally opposed to one based on registered votes. Such thresholds have rendered referendums a discredited device in Italy and several other European countries.

Any turnout threshold should be set at a level to avoid ridicule in a very low poll than as a democratic hurdle. And a fixed threshold like 40% would represent a variable hurdle in practice – easily met if you proposed to abolish the army as Switerzerland proposed in a referendum in the 1980s and harder as in a low interest issue like the AV referendum.

Hague expects No to AV campaign to reveal donors

February 18, 2011

Today, the opening day of the offical campaign, William Hague Foreign Secretary and Patron of the NO campaign, asked on R4′s Today programme about the anonymity of the NO donorssaid that he fully expected these to be revealed. His statement follows a week during which NO were put on the back foot over this issue by jounalists questions. It will be a hot day in the NO office today.

Campaign finance is always a matter of public interest and an issue journalists are bound to ask detailed questions. Sometimes the facts revealed give a cue to voters as to who how they should vote. Such as in the US when big tobacco companies or industrial farmers pour millions of dollars into campaigns to protect their interests. More often especially in the UK, at least so far, it is still more a matter of mild and proper interest and an easy story for journalists. But all campaigns should be aware this is bound to come up at some point.

Yes Campaign stifled by Parliament’s rules

February 16, 2011

Wales Yes Campaign stifled by Parliament’s rules.

This is an excellent account by John Osmond of IWA on how a central part of PPERA (the referendum rules) works and a major flaw in the legislation now damaging the democratic process in Wales.

I warned 8 months ago at a conference in Cardiff of this implicit VETO in the Act which is truly anti the referendum debate itself an absolutely integral part of the referendum device. Lord Neill was convinced mainly by the Welsh experience in 1997 that some minimal funding is needed if the referendum debate is to be useful and fair. I agree and have long disliked the wording in the Act. Perhaps we need to look at the US legislation where campaigns opt in or out of State funding.

This isn’t the only nonsense in the Act. The Scottish Devolution referendum was a simple multi-option referendum, a feature largely ignored by the voters. But if held now under PPERA, the Commission would have to fund campaigns for all three “possible outcomes on the ballot paper”, I presume the fourth outcome, a taxpower without a Parliament would have been regarded as not a “possible outcome”. However even three campaigns would have been complicating enough as the broadcasters would have to follow suit by representing all of them. And just as in Wales now any one of the three would have the funding VETO.

This must change.

Apture

October 20, 2010

John Lilburne

Chris Mullin leaves imperial capital

October 8, 2010

Not as funny as his previous diary as there is more sadness in several directions. Still his insights of great men with feet of clay and a Westminster that needs reformed ring true and amuse. I recommend it.

Hague announces EU powers referendum lock

October 7, 2010

William Hague heralds ‘hardheaded’ Eurosceptic policies | Politics | The Guardian.

Scottish Tories won’t oppose AV

October 6, 2010

Scottish Tories won’t oppose AV | The Spectator.

Tory MP and Green MP join forces to push for PR voting

October 5, 2010

BBC News – Tory MP and Green MP join forces to push for PR voting.

Finessing the coalition’s EU referendum lock

September 16, 2010

The notion that Parliamentar is Sovreign has been circumscribed for the second time if not the third. The Good Friday Agreement being the first. That Agreement requires any transfer of Northern Ireland to the Irish republic must be agreed by a referendum. The Scottish Parliament which came with a referendum most likely could only be abolished by another. On Europe, this “lock” is worth something. True Europe works around things or takes an inch then makes it a mile of it. It will get even better at EU incrementalism but so powerful is its integrationist motive that sooner or later it will come up against this “lock” of a referendum and then it will have to stand up and debate the matter. We should welcome the prospect. It can’t be too far off.

Finessing the coalition’s EU referendum lock | The Spectator.