The Power2010 Pick n Mix Pledge

Power2010 have revealed the five reforms that will form the Power2010 Pledge.

The most popular proposals that will make up the POWER Pledge are a proportional voting system, the end of ID cards and government data hoarding, an elected House of Lords, English votes on English laws, and a commitment to drawing up a written constitution.

Commenting, Power2010 Director, Pam Giddy, said:

“Some of the ideas that proved popular with the public will surprise many. In particular a commitment to give MPs representing English constituencies the sole right to agree English laws. But whether you agree with this or not, there is no denying that it is a real issue that the political classes have ignored for too long."

I don't think the inclusion of English Votes on English Laws surprises that many people outside the constitutional reform lobby. After all, in 2008 the Hansard Audit of Political Engagement found that Scottish MPs' voting rights was the constitutional issue that most annoyed voters. When that report was published I asked why the West Lothian Question was "the constitutional issue that is most keenly ignored by political parties and the least salient of issues for constitutional reformers". The only surprising thing is that Pam Giddy is surprised, hasn't she heard that the latest British Social Attitudes survey found that 61% of the public believe that Scottish MPs should not be able to vote on English legislation? Obviously not.

It's amusing that she blames the "political classes" for ignoring this issue. It's not just the political classes who have been ignoring it, the entire constitutional reform lobby have been ignoring it too, presumably because it is unfashionable or deemed politically incorrect to assert majority rights. But that's democracy, and we have Power2010 to thank for bringing this issue to the constitutional reform table at long last.

The Power2010 press release continues (my bold):

The next phase of the campaign will see voters asked to commit their support to a majority of the proposals – at least three – and then challenge every candidate at the next general election to support them too.

You what? Where did this "at least three" come from and when was that decided? My understanding was that prospective MPs would be lobbied to sign up to a pledge that included five reforms, not that the lobbyists - us voters - would pick three that we were comfortable with and ask the prospective MPs to support those. That also appeared to be Helena Kennedy's understanding, or at least I presume it was given what she wrote in the Independent:

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.

Still, whatever the reason for the "at least three" ruling it may be no bad thing from an English standpoint.

Few will argue with dismatling the database state, only a few will argue with electing the Lords, but proportional representation and a written constitution are immensely problematic; PR because the Tories & Labour don't want to break their bipartisan hold on power and the link between MP and constituency, and a written constitution because it is a herculean task (not to mention that fact that we have Common Law and don't need a codified constitution).

This might at least make some MPs think about signing up to EVoEL, whereas if they had to sign up to all five reforms many would dismiss the pledge out of hand. And from this we may discover which MPs are friends of England.

Visit the Power2010 website to take part.