Power2010, an apology

David Rickard (aka BritologyWatch) has an article on Our Kingdom entitled "And then there were three: the Power 2010 pledge", it's well worth a read.

In regard to the "three" I feel that I have an apology to make to some of you for unwittingly misleading you. It was my understanding that the Power2010 Pledge would be an indivisible five point pledge, as implied by Helena Kennedy:

Over the months before the general election we are going to build this public agenda for changing politics and stage a mass popular "vote" for the five reforms people most want to see the next Parliament carry through.

This is the Power2010 Pledge; a public commitment that every candidate standing at the next election will be asked to make.

But no. Our politicians are not going to be asked to commit to the pledge in its entirety; instead the voters are going to pick "at least three" of the top five reforms and ask their parliamentary candidates to commit to those. According to Power2010's Guy Aitchison, this change in the rules was instituted because:

It was decided collectively by the Power2010 team in discussion with partner organisations over the course of the Vote. Some partners were concerned things like PR would preclude them from supporting the Pledge.

In other words they changed the rules mid-vote and didn't tell you about it. Like you I wasn't informed of that decision, and I don't know why the change wasn't indicated on the Power2010 website.

In a comment on David's article I explain why I wanted English Votes on English Laws in the top five.

I took a strategic decision to support EVoEL, and the basis of that decision was that these major reforms should not be undertaken without consideration of the English Question. It was my understanding that the five top reforms would form the Power2010 Pledge that prospective MPs would be lobbied to commit to in its entirety, thereby forcing constitutional reformers to consider the English dimension alongside the other constitutional reforms. It is my view that the other reforms in the top five (with the exception of ID cards/database state) should not be undertaken without resolution - or at the very least, consideration - of the English Question. Unfortunately Power2010 changed the rules without informing us, and after voting finished we found out that, actually, voters would be required to agree with only "at least three" of the top five reforms and ask their candidates to commit to those. So unfortunately the likes of Unlock Democracy and their cohorts can now just urge their supporters to support three reforms without consideration of the English Question.

Unfortunately it also means that I've unwittingly convinced a lot of people to vote for EVoEL on a false prospectus. We should have been told that it was a pick n mix pledge. To say that I'm extremely annoyed that we weren't told is something of an understatement - Power2010 is devalued as a result.

So to those of you who I persuaded to vote for EVoEL on the understanding that that it would force the constitutional reform lobby to support it, I apologise. I was naive, I was misled. I should have known that they would somehow wriggle out of it.

On the plus side, at least EVoELs is in the top five, and that fact may still help force a debate on the English Question. If I did persuade you to vote, then I thank you. I hope that it doesn't turn out to be a waste of your time.