Lord Falconer concerned about missing voters

Too Many People Are Not Registered to Vote – And It’s About to Get Worse

Too many people are not registered to vote. The reasons for this vary – they don’t have the time, they are disillusioned with party politics, they don’t see how voting will make any difference to their lives. But the result is the same: they are not getting heard and the future of our country is being decided by an increasingly narrow section of society.

And it is about to get worse. This week, the government decided to bring forward by a year the end of the transition to Individual Electoral Registration, removing millions of people from the electoral register and ignoring the advice of the Electoral Commission.

This raises serious concerns for our democracy and is the latest in a long line of deeply partisan moves by a government intent on stifling democratic scrutiny and rigging the game in its favour.

The Electoral Commission has warned that 1.9million people could fall off the register if the transition deadline is brought forward.

We know what kinds of voters are more likely to be missing: they are private renters, members of the BAME communities, those who live in built up areas or towns with a high student population. Perhaps the greatest divide is between the older and younger generations: some 95% of the over-65s are on the electoral register, yet only around 70% of 18 to 24-year-olds are estimated to be registered.

The register is the beating heart of our democracy. The coming year will see a significant number of elections, which makes it even more important for the register to be as complete and accurate as possible.

But it also performs a wider function. It provides the foundation for the boundary review, which determines parliamentary constituency boundaries. The next review is due to start early in 2016 and the registers published in December 2015 will be used as its basis.

David Cameron has decided to push ahead with an arbitrary reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600, despite warnings that this could lead to constituencies that do not reflect local communities.

Now he is proposing to do so on the basis of a severely depleted register with missing voters concentrated in certain communities and parts of the country – a clear move by the Government to give the Tories an electoral advantage and one that would call into question the legitimacy of our democracy.

This of course has to be placed in the context of a government who after severely restricting access to justice and reducing the ability of charities to challenge government policy in the last Parliament, has, barely two months in the job, promised to limit Freedom of Information powers, scrap the Human Rights Act, create two-classes of MPs by the backdoor and only this week published a Bill to stifle legitimate rights to take industrial action.

David Cameron’s Government may claim the one nation mantra but their politics are divisive and partisan. We will not stand by and allow millions to lose their voice.

Lord Falconer is Shadow Lord Chancellor and the shadow secretary of the state for justice

Source: Huffington Post UK

Government plans to water down Freedom of Information Act to homeopathic levels

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Review-Freedom-Information-Act-make-harder-public/story-26933685-detail/story.html

Tory Health Minister questions publicly-owned free health service

“The idea that the NHS can remain taxpayer-funded and free needs to be re-examined as costs rise”, a Conservative health minister has said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-principle-of-a-free-taxpayerfunded-nhs-must-be-questioned-says-tory-health-minister-10395991.html

The Conservative Party Manifesto for this election promised a free high-quality health service.

Added to which, the cap on cost of residential care promised for 2016 has been delayed until at least 2020:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33552279

Tory MP can’t manage on his salary: has to “scrimp and save”

…”Mr Ellwood, who lives with his solicitor wife in a £700,000 converted barn in a Dorset village and rents a London flat, said the pay rise was well overdue and much needed in his case.

He wrote: ‘I know I speak for the silent majority (who are not millionaires) to say this increase is well overdue. I never expected to be watching the pennies at my age and yet this is what I now have to do. …’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3165210/I-never-expected-watching-pennies-age-Tory-MP-90-000-sparks-fury-claiming-needs-10-pay-rise.html

Bet the people who voted for him in his Bournemouth constituency really feel for him, poor thing.

Hospital closures: the spin – and where are Hugo Swire’s comments?

“…County Councillor Claire Wright said: “It’s an absolute travesty. We heard that 11,000 people signed petitions to save the hospitals and they didn’t answer my question as they said they didn’t have enough information on how much a health hub would cost. The CCG say they are saving £500,000 but they haven’t costed in how much it will cost to create a health hub, which in Budleigh Salterton cost £800,000 and they haven’t costed how much home-based care will cost. It doesn’t stack up financially as they say that’s detail and are using numbers to their own advantage.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Anger-frustration-East-Devon-plans-axe-community/story-26919959-detail/story.html

Should East Devon District Council twin with Guildford Borough Council?

Letter: Guildford Borough Council –
Where Democracy Goes to Die

I attended for the first time on Tuesday evening (July 7) the monthly Guildford Borough Council meeting. I was expecting debate on Guildford’s key issues and I wanted to experience first-hand how the elected officials that hold Guildford’s future in their hands go about safeguarding it.

What I experienced was the worst kind of self-congratulatory, derogatory, tribal politics where power grab was pretty much the order of the day.

I was expecting to see the Conservatives, having won an unprecedented 35 out of 48 seats, through no effort of their own but because of the coincidence of the general election and the fact that local election results follow national trends, being magnanimous in their victory.

Instead I witnessed contempt for the other parties, especially for the Guildford Greenbelt Group (GGG), whose only fault was to challenge the status quo and win three seats from the Conservatives.

No wonder young people are switched off politics when a number of white, middle-aged men are only interested in their own opinion and congratulating each other for the fantastic job they believe they are doing without any regard for what would be best for the borough they represent.

During the pompous proceedings there was complete disregard for all opposition, ignoring the fact that the opposition are elected members representing thousands, the majority actually*, of the borough’s residents.

Request for transparency by the GGG was denied on the questionable grounds of data privacy.

But worst of all was the election of councillor representatives for a number of charities across Guildford.

A number of concerns were raised as to how or why candidates were put forward. In any fair selection, you would expect at least a small biography from each candidate explaining why they are best suited to the position in question as well as allow the candidates to state their case for nomination.

Not in Guildford Borough Council. There is no time for anything non-partisan in there. As long as a Conservative is chosen we can dispense with such niceties.

In a vote that can only be described as a farce, the council did not explain why these people were chosen as candidates nor allow the candidates to explain to the electorate, their fellow councillors, why they were best suited for the position and its requirements.

The explanation for this? There was not enough time and the councillors would stay there for a few more hours if such proceedings were allowed. Guildford’s citizens must be proud to know that their elected representatives, in their one monthly meeting do not have enough time for democracy to take its course.

Why waste time, when the outcome is predetermined and unless you are a Conservative, you won’t be voted in?

Two cases stand out: Cllr Angela Gunning’s removal from the Guildford Waterside Centre as well as Cllr Julia McShane’s removal from the Westborough and Park Barn Community Centre.

In a move that represents the nasty approach the Conservatives plan to follow for the next four years, prior to the meeting Cllr Iseult Roche [Con, Worplesdon] notified Cllr Gunning [Lab, Stoke], against whom she was standing, of her intention to withdraw her nomination.

Then, during the proceedings, Conservative Cllr Roche decided to withdraw her withdrawal whilst at the same time making a small speech as to why she was the most appropriate candidate for the position, the only speech allowed.

Lo and behold, she was voted in with Conservative councillors voting, as throughout, almost en bloc.

Similarly, Cllr McShane [Lib Dem, Westborough], a long-standing councillor for her ward was voted out of the Westborough and Park Barn community centre in favour of the two Conservative councillors in the ward, who had stood as “paper candidates”. One of them had not even turned up for the council meeting.

In a council where the leader proclaims the importance of re-building the council’s damaged reputation, yet sees no issues with remaining in business with a convicted forger and deceiver, we should only expect the council’s resources to be used in favour of the narrow-minded Conservatives’ political agenda instead of the well-being of all of Guildford borough’s citizens, to improve living standards right across the borough.

At the same time, the opposition can be ignored and held in contempt throughout.

As the elections held that night showed, there was no concern for the needs of the external organisations, only the needs of the Conservatives. The next four years will deteriorate Guildford’s standard of living for most residents unless they happen to support the Conservatives.

The council meeting clearly showed that in Guildford Borough, local politics do not transcend party politics and petty behaviours. No wonder it switches people off.

George Dokimakis is a member of the Labour Party.

*47%, of those that voted in the recent GBC elections, voted Conservative.

http://www.guildford-dragon.com/2015/07/09/letter-guildford-borough-council-where-democracy-goes-to-die/