Promise effective democracy and win votes for LP

Around 75 percent of eligible voters at the last general election did NOT vote Tory. According to repeated surveys around the same proportion of British adults support the introduction of direct democracy, for instance that a large agreed number of voters can make a public proposal and so trigger a binding ballot to decide the matter. Probably there is considerable overlap of these two "populations". So, please lobby to place the introduction of elements of local and national direct democracy, to complement "representative" and party democracy, centrally in future Labour Party policy :-) Michael for www.iniref.org


Showing 11 reactions

What do you think of this suggestion? (You must be logged in)
Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • commented 2016-07-01 18:56:58 +0100
    Hallo June Helm, Our Campaign based at www.iniref.org has NOT intervened in the Labour party leadership conflict and indeed we are independent of any political party. Here is our latest view on democracy after the “brexit” ballot:

    Statement by Campaign for direct democracy in Britain

    Late June 2016

    After the Brexit result many are now asking, should we have more referenda or do they do more harm than good? This invites the question, can we improve the quality of our democracy and the ways in which we conduct our public affairs?

    Our democracy is way out of date and badly designed so that elected politicians often fail to represent the majority of us.

    In recent years Government and Parliament have carried out ballots, referenda about: Scottish independence; the House of Commons electoral system (alternative vote); the European Union. As ruling politicians see it, with these ballots they were asking the people for their opinion about an important public issue. The results of these votes are not legally binding but are only advisory and may be ignored by the government of the day. This is weak democracy of poor quality.

    In our opinion our state needs more and better democracy, not less. The right to initiate a referendum should belong to the people (acting through the electorate) and not lie only, as now in effect, with the government.

    What is meant by “more and better democracy”?

    For instance, a large number of voters should be able to start a veto referendum of government policy or make a formal proposal for electoral decision (ballot) on new law. See more detail at http://www.iniref.org

    Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
    Citizens’ Initiative and Referendum I&R ~ GB
    http://www.iniref.org/enter.html
  • commented 2016-07-01 18:35:18 +0100
    But how do reconcile the mention of democracy when you cannot even practice it in the Labour Party? Jeremy Corbyn was voted leader in a democratic election for party leader yet your organisation has pushed to have another ballot to oust him. How can anyone believe your organisation and the MPs that belong to your organisation will ever follow a democratic vote by the public? Or will you be like the Tories, say what you think the people want in a manifesto and then once in power renege on nearly everything you proposed?
  • tagged this with like 2016-07-01 18:35:17 +0100
  • commented 2016-05-14 18:49:35 +0100
    Chris Everett commented 9 days ago
    “If Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can have democratically elected legislatures there is no reason why the UK cannot.”
    The electoral system is a matter of state constitution. Direct democracy would be an ideal way to change the electoral system. This was done some years ago in New Zealand in a two stage referendum process. The people scrapped “first past the post” and replaced it with proportional representation.
  • commented 2016-05-14 18:38:27 +0100
    Chris Everett commented 9 days ago
    “The fact that 63% of those who DID VOTE didn’t vote Tory is the significant number.”

    We wanted to emphasise the problem of abstainers and to imply that the political parties could help to win some back into public participation. Some research done for the Power Inquiry (2004-6) showed that UK adults who were declared non-voters said that they would probably take part in direct democracy. So the parties should promise to introduce some “tools” of direct democracy.
  • commented 2016-05-14 18:31:45 +0100
    Chris Everett wrote 8 days ago:
    “Britain doesn’t have a constitution which means the electoral system can be changed by a one vote majority in Parliament. By contrast, each piece of direct democracy must be won locally or nationally by votes of politicians who have no interest in promoting it. Politicians who don’t even require a majority to win an election.”

    It is not politicians who can decide on a public issue in direct democracy – there are many examples of direct democracy in action which show this. We propose a system which combines direct with indirect democracy (“representative” democracy, with MPs and councillors, parties and parliaments). With direct democracy installed, most of the work of governing and lawmaking is still done by parliament and government. A major advantage of direct democracy is that the citizenry and electorate can participate effectively. People can intervene to correct their representatives if there are very good reasons for doing so. If an issue comes to ballot, then the electorate makes the decision, not politicians.

    For a short presentation of how direct democracy could work in the UK please see http://www.iniref.org/steps.html and the introduction at http://www.iniref.org/steps.html
  • commented 2016-05-06 04:39:58 +0100
    Britain doesn’t have a constitution which means the electoral system can be changed by a one vote majority in Parliament. By contrast, each piece of direct democracy must be won locally or nationally by votes of politicians who have no interest in promoting it. Politicians who don’t even require a majority to win an election. It is a question of which is easier to achieve. If the electorate won’t turnout in a PR election (20% greater turnout in Scotland than England yesterday) then they won’t turn out for direct democracy.
  • commented 2016-05-05 22:58:23 +0100
    Direct democracy is a good, probably the best way to reform or make state constitution. The electoral system is a matter of constitution and direct democracy has already proved very effective here. For instance, the people of Bavaria (1995) using citizen-instigated referendum gave themselves direct democracy for local government, also the people of New Zealand threw out “first past the post” and selected a proportional electoral method of their choice, using referendum in two steps.

    By mentioning “75 percent of eligible voters at the last general election (who) did NOT vote Tory” we wanted to ask politicians to not write off non-voters. The Power Inquiry (2004-6) commissioned a study of non-voters which showed that, if elements of direct democracy were to be included in the political “tool box” then they would be likely to join in (and so maybe come back to taking part in public affairs). Michael for www.iniref.org
  • commented 2016-05-04 19:05:26 +0100
    The fact that 63% of those who DID VOTE didn’t vote Tory is the significant number. Whilst more direct democracy is good it does not make up for having undemocratically elected MPs. If Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can have democratically elected legislatures there is no reason why the UK cannot.
  • tagged this with neutral 2016-05-04 19:05:25 +0100
  • published this page in Join the debate 2016-04-04 14:07:35 +0100