As the highly-charged topic of electoral reform returned to the House of Commons, Westminster Hall saw a rare public airing of a lower-profile but equally contentious row over established electoral practice.
A growing list of councils are planning to delay the counting of votes at the general election until Friday morning, in an attempt to save on staff overtime costs.
Against this background, last Wednesday saw David Cairns (L, Inverclyde) lead a debate – the first on the topic – on the accountability of returning officers.
Cairns believed strongly that: “Countries where politicians have a direct and controlling influence over the administration of elections inevitably end up with intimidation, corruption and the decaying of democracy.”
“To what extent should Parliament be prescriptive in the rules that it sets out? To what degree should we leave matters to professional election administrators?” he asked.
Lindsay Hoyle (L, Chorley) chipped in, telling a well-attend debate that the returning officer in Chorley had declared: “I’m the returning officer. This is my decision,” when asked to discuss the merits, or otherwise, of a Friday count.
Never one to hold back, Hoyle declared this to be an “unacceptable” approach. “It is about time that these faceless, unelected people sat down with the elected Member of Parliament to have proper discussions that are open to all parties”, he added.
Cairns was left distinctly unimpressed by the “dictatorial” approach adopted by Chorley’s returning officer – he happily noted the consultation process going on in his own constituency, and called for rules for returning officers to “be more prescriptive”.
Geraldine Smith (L, Morecambe & Lunesdale) raised her concerns about the security problems that would lead on from ballot boxes being kept overnight, but Tom Harris (L, Glasgow S), who has previously put down an EDM calling for MPs to “save election night”, homed in on the rather more emotional reasons: “Why is it important to hold the count immediately after polling? It has entertainment value,” he declared.
Cairns had earlier pointed out that: “‘Were you still up for Portillo?’ would not have quite the same ring as ‘Did your tea-break coincide with the announcement of the result from Enfield Southgate?’.”
Eric Pickles (C, Brentwood & Ongar) focused less on “some cheery tradition” but instead on the need to secure a swift count in order to bring some stability to the financial markets.
Jo Swinson (LD, E Dunbartonshire) found this argument a little po-faced, reminding the Tory chairman that “entertainment value does have an impact on democracy – it helps people to engage with and take an interest in our democracy”.
The arguments of would-be dissenting returning officers left MPs unimpressed: all agreed that postal votes should not necessitate a delayed count, while any health and safety reasoning was also rejected.
Michael Wills, the justice minister, wrapped up the debate with a warning to returning officers: “I hope that they will read the record of this debate and reflect carefully on the strength of feeling.”
Electoral reform may have stolen the headlines, but election night may never be the same again if this spat is not resolved.
Ainsworth unveils defence green paper
Bob Ainsworth unveiled his defence green paper, the precursor to a strategic defence review, last Wednesday.
The defence secretary drew praise from his Conservative shadow Liam Fox, who noted: “When the history of this dreadful government is written, his will be one of the more honourable mentions.”
The key line in Ainsworth’s speech was the question over whether Britain should “further integrate” with its European partners. He accepted that “defence must improve its ability to work in partnership with our key allies and security institutions to make the most of our combined resources… we will strengthen our alliance with the US if we strengthen our position in Europe”.
Fox accepted the need to strengthen ties with France, but insisted that any deal should rest on two questions: “Do they invest in defence, and do they fight?”
He then provided his own answer. “Sadly, too few European allies pass both these tests.”
For the Lib Dems, Nick Harvey welcomed the need to build closer European alliances, but was left baffled – as was his party leader Nick Clegg at PMQs – by the decision to omit the renewal of Britain’s nuclear deterrent from the paper.
Once more unto the breach?
The tone at Gordon Brown’s appearance before the liaison committee on Tuesday (below) was set as a spiky Peter Luff questioned the PM on the state of the deficit and government spending.
The PM shot the business committee chairman a particularly withering look as Luff responded to his answer on defence spending with the line: “I’m not much the clearer, to be honest.”
He enjoyed a more lighted-hearted exchange with Phil Willis, chairman of the science committee, who began by noting that “this is the last time we will meet in the forum”. Brown quickly replied: “I hope not. Maybe for you.”
But the smile quickly fell from the PM’s face as Tony Wright, chairman of the public administration committee, took him to task on constitutional reform.
First, Wright focused on the government’s decision to give MPs just a day to debate his report on Commons reform and to allow a non-amendable vote.
Would a rejected proposal be brought back to the Commons immediately, Wright asked. “Let’s be realistic,” Brown replied. “If we have to go through line-by-line, dot and comma, on each of these proposals, then we will not have the parliamentary time to be able to do that.” That sounded like a no.
However, he answered very much in the affirmative when Barry Sheerman, chairman of the children, schools and families committee, asked if he had been having “a flirtation with votes at 16”.
It was, said Brown, a “live issue”, but one which he “would prefer to discuss in the context of better citizenship education”.
Sheerman suggested that lowering the voting age would “pull down the age of adulthood”.
Both Willis and Phyllis Starkey, chairman of the communities and local government committee, looked distinctly unimpressed with his reasoning, but committee divisions were set aside as the PM answered Wright’s question on whether he agreed with President Obama’s push to move away from politics as a perpetual campaign.
“I will not give up on changing the tone of our politics,” Brown declared.
The committee broke out in laughter; the PM stared back, stony-faced. Perhaps the 16-year-olds will believe him.
Northern Ireland questions
Alistair Carmichael couldn’t resist the chance to make life uncomfortable for Owen Patterson at Wednesday’s Northern Ireland questions.
The Lib Dem Northern Ireland spokesman smiled knowingly after drawing MPs’ attention to anyone “caught out trying to construct a pan-unionist alliance” – a clear reference to the country house summit which Paterson, the Tory NI spokesman, had controversially hosted with UUP and DUP representatives.
Paterson shook his head and scowled throughout secretary of state Shaun Woodward’s insistence that “we have to put the people of Northern Ireland above any party interest”, but the subject returned when Stephen Pound (L, Ealing N) asked whether the “clandestine talks” served to “help or hinder negotiations”.
Paterson’s own demand that “both the UUP and SDLP are involved as equal partners” looked like an attempt to rebalance a Tory position that has risked looking decidedly lop-sided.
It was an enjoyable half-hour for the secretary of state, who received praise for the government’s role in the ongoing talks to devolve policing powers to Northern Ireland – described by Woodward as “on the edge”.
