"We will give
residents the power to instigate local
referendums on any local issue."
HM Government UK 2010
Promised democracy reform
purged from the Conservative/LibDem Localism
Bill
Proposal for effective urgent action by Parliament
A precious cargo of citizen-led democracy was thrown overboard during
the Localism Bill's passage through Parliament. Both the
Conservative Party before the last general election and
the
Conservative/Libdem Coalition in their 2010 post-election agreement
stated that
they would introduce the local citizens' referendum. In their
coalition agreement the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats
promised localism, power
to the people and stronger local democracy. Although imperfect, early
drafts of the Localism Bill contained some improvement in citizen-led
democracy, such as the right to trigger a referendum on any local
issue. Predictably, big industry and conservative interest groups,
acting through liberal "democrat" MPs (peers), lobbied to sabotage the
Bill.
We present below a chronological compendium of notes, and comments on
press articles, which illustrate how we at Iniref~I&Rgb observed
and tried to influence the fate of citizens' democracy in the Localism
Bill.
Sadly, Her Majesty's government and parliament failed to anchor any
substantial democracy reform in the Localism Act (Royal assent 15th
Nov. 2011). Unsurprised, the reform campaigners will continue. Below,
we sketch a way forward with a proposal for a NEW Democracy Bill which
truly will return more political power to the people in both
local and central governance. This legislation will introduce a
"tool-kit" of citizen-initiated democracy such as: the citizens'
law-proposal which can lead to legally binding ballot;
citizen-initiated referendum with which law made by
Parliament and policy of government can be blocked, vetoed, revoked or
changed.
Contents
• Democracy in the Localism Bill: What remains of promised
citizen-power if the government caves in to big lobbyists? 21st
August 2011
• Reply to Eric Pickles MP: Local planning and democracy. In the
Guardian online newspaper, 15 September 2011
• Tories and LibDems betray on local democracy? Alert byAndrew Boff, member of the Tory
party and London councillor. October 12th 2011
• Localism Bill – Community Empowerment DROPPED! Counter-Arguments.
Reply to a Future
of
London report. October 13th 2011
• Liberal Democrats remove local referendums on any issue (so claim
LibDem peers). 10th November 2011
• Local Government Association LGA axed community empowerment (18
referendum clauses) from Localism Bill (so claims LGA). 11th November
2011
• Con/Libdems fail democracy exam. Remedy outlined: NEW Democracy Act.
18th November 2011
• Tamworth angered by Localism Bill: Right to
"instigate" a referendum on any local issue removed by government. 10th
March 2012
• Need for reform of direct democracy in community and parish: INIREF
reply to Cotswold Journal: Parish
polls 'are playing games with democracy'. 19th April 2012
• Lords and lobbies demolish democracy in Localism Bill. 15th May 2012
Democracy in the Localism Bill: What remains of promised
citizen-power if the government caves in to big lobbyists?
21st August 2011
The
Localism Bill among many, many other topics contains draft law which
would introduce some elements of citizen-instigated democracy (1). From
the
beginning the Bill has offered the right of voters to present a
proposal if it has been endorsed by at least one in twenty eligible
voters. The Council is then obliged to hold a referendum. Some
exceptions were defined from the beginning and in response to lobbyists
(e.g. some companies many from the building industry, electricity
suppliers, even some environmentalists) and local government
associations, additional grounds which would enable councils to refuse
a valid referendum demand ("petition") were inserted by the government.
The democracy on offer in the Localism Bill has been transformed
to
look more like forms of consultation or control available to local
governments.
Never has the Conservative/Libdem coalition gone so far as to
propose in draft legislation that a referendum resulting from a
citizens' proposition could lead to a ballot which is legally binding
(2, 3). Again, if this is how things remain, then the democracy of the
Localism
Bill, which was supposed to fulfill the election promise of devolving
real political power to citizens as well as councils, will turn out to
be little more than a time-wasting and frustrating framework for
consultation or petitioning, procedures which we have had for a very
long time.
The Localism Bill has not completed its passage through
Parliament
(4) so there remains time to improve it. For instance, an amendment to
make
the results of local referendum legally binding has been presented by
Zac Goldsmith MP and other members.
Reply to Eric
Pickles MP: Local planning and democracy
COMMENT BY INIREF 15 September 2011 11:28AM
The Localism Bill is supposed to improve democracy. You
write,
"The local plans that councils draw up together with residents
will hold greater sway than ever. And we are looking to introduce
neighbourhood planning, a new means for residents to have a say over
the look and feel of the places where we live."
Which local residents will be involved here? Will they be
elected?
Chosen by sortition (lot)? If not, how will planning become more
democratic? Surely the same old bunch of cronies will continue to
dominate.
Powerful democratic tools could be the citizens' initiative and referendum. Local people
-- any citizen -- could put forward a plan or policy and demand that
a referendum be held about it. Council plans could be put to public
ballot if a large, agreed number of people sign a demand. Your Localism
Bill, Mr. Pickles, does indeed contain a proposal to introduce the
citizens' referendum. The catch here: you insist that the council will
not be obliged to abide by the people's decision!
The current planning
system is inefficient and complex – our reforms will put it back in the
hands of local residents
--------------------------------------------
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain http://www.iniref.org/
Tories and LibDems betray on local democracy? October 12th 2011
The
Localism Bill is currently
being
debated in the House of Lords. The Bill contains a section
which would give people the right to put forward proposals and demand
local referenda. Now it looks as though even this minor democratic
reform will be withdrawn.
Andrew Boff, as a member of the Tory party and London councillor,
has
for years pleaded for genuine local democracy. Quoting Lord Greaves,
the Liberal "Democratic" peer who proposed to remove the democracy
reform, Boff writes
“Councils already have the powers to hold referendums when they choose
to do so” {stated by Lord Greaves, Ed.} Don't you get geddit m'Lud?
What about when the people want to hold a referendum on an issue that
they choose in one of the many local authorities which are one party
states? Who the hell are local councillors if they are not servants of
the people rather than their masters."
INIREF comments:
Both the Conservative Party before the last general election and
the
Conservative/Libdem Coalition in their published agreement stated that
they would introduce the local citizens' referendum. From the Coalition
agreement p. 27, "We will give residents the power to instigate local
referendums on any local issue."
If the ruling parties in government do NOT push this through,
then
the coalition agreement will be seen as being worth less than the paper
on which it was printed.
Further, in order to provide effective local democracy which
would
encourage citizens to act responsibly in public affairs, the amendment
(Goldsmith et al) which would make citizen-initiated referenda legally
binding should be adopted.
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain http://www.iniref.org/
Localism Bill – Community Empowerment DROPPED! Counter-Arguments
INIREF replies to a Future
of
London
report:
Update
on
the Localism Bill – Community Empowerment?
October 13, 2011 By Natalia
"During the debate in the House of Lords this week, the entire
chapter (18 clauses) on referendums has been dropped."
INIREF comments:
The Conservative/Liberal-Democrat 2010 coalition agreement contains the
following clear statement, p. 27,
"We
will give residents the power to instigate local
referendums on any local issue."
What are the promises of our politicians worth?
Further, the arguments made in the House of Lords against community
empowerment by direct democracy are unconvincing. They reflect the
views of local politicians, businesses, building and infra-structure
(e.g. electricity) concerns, who have raged against the democratic
components of the Localism Bill from an early stage.
The criticisms of the citizen-instigated referendum are wrong, for
instance:
a. "the risk of misuse by extreme groups" Extreme groups are
already
able to organise and take part in elections. They have won seats. This
has not led us to abolish elections but many oppose extremists by other
means. Regarding citizen-instigated referendum, it is nonsense to
suggest that extremists could decide anything. It is the electorate who
decides in referendum. Even the "petition" for referendum presents a
difficult hurdle for a small group. Most people simply would NOT sign
up for extremist or malicious proposals. (Hurdles must be set at an
appropriate level: contact info@iniref.org).
Reference to "the risk of misuse by extreme groups" is scaremongering
in order to ward off democracy reform.
b. "the advisory nature of the referenda was called into
question". Yes, this is a good criticism of the Localism Bill. But it
is perverse to suggest this as a reason against the democracy reforms.
The answer is to make the results of local referenda legally binding.
An amendment to do just this has been put forward by a mixed party
group of MPs in the Commons. This amendment should be made!
c. "disempowerment of,
local authorities". The powers of local authorities are fixed by
central government and could not be changed by local people in
referendum. With citizen-instigated referenda it is true that policy
proposals could be made and council decisions vetoed. But this does not
"disempower" local government. As long as local councils follow the
will of their electorates then no referenda are needed. In general, the
quality of local politics would be improved by having stronger, more
participative democracy.
d. "potential costs". Often raised as a "bogeyman" by opponents of
direct democracy. Where there is citizen-instigated referendum public
budgetting tends to be more efficient. Also, referenda often lead to
savings, by trimming expensive council schemes or conserving valuable
buildings. Also, democracy is worth a lot! Central government could
provide funds for local referenda if need be.
Regarding the Localism Bill, you claim that the LibDems
were
”Promoting
local
democracy” but go on to admit that you helped to
axe a
major reform of our democracy.
“…. the proposals for non-binding local referendums on any issue
were also removed by Liberal Democrats. Although having the laudable
aim of improving democracy, in practice, they were open to hijack by
extremist groups on low turnouts, and would be very expensive for local
authorities, particularly at a time of economic constraint.”
The “citizens’ initiative” and right to demand referendum,
removed
from the Bill in the House of Lords, with government agreement, was not
meant to replace local government by permanent direct democracy but to
enable people to raise issues neglected by councils and to propose a
veto-ballot for unwanted proposals. A substantial and valuable
improvement from the citizens’ perspective and regarding quality of
public governance. Repeated surveys have show strong public support:
your party risks losing votes because of this.
During the Bill’s passage through Parliament the design of the
proposed citizens’ referendum was criticised. The “blanket” hurdle of
five percent was said to be too low. This could have been changed, for
instance by raising the hurdle for small communities. The non-binding
nature of proposed referenda was said to be a negative feature — people
might regard the whole thing as a waste of time if councils could
simply ignore the citizens’ vote. So why not accept the amendment to
make the polls binding?
You raise “the risk of misuse by extreme groups” Extreme groups
are
already able to organise and take part in elections. They have won
seats. This has not led us to abolish elections but many oppose
extremists by other means. Regarding citizen-instigated referendum, it
is nonsense to suggest that extremists could decide anything. It is the
electorate who decides in referendum. Even the “petition” for
referendum presents a difficult hurdle for a small group. Most people
simply would NOT sign up for extremist or malicious proposals. (Hurdles
must be set at an appropriate level: contact info@iniref.org).
Reference
to
“the
risk
of
misuse
by extreme groups” is scaremongering
in order to ward off democracy reform.
You write that referenda “would be very expensive”. In
comparison to
bailing out profligate bankers? Potential costs have often been raised
as a “bogeyman” by opponents of direct democracy. Where there is
citizen-instigated referendum public budgetting tends to be more
efficient. Also, referenda often lead to savings, by trimming expensive
council schemes or conserving valuable buildings. Also, democracy is
worth a lot! Central government could provide funds for local referenda
if need be.
The Conservative/Liberal-Democrat 2010 coalition agreement
contains
the following clear statement, p. 27,
“We will give residents the power to instigate local referendums
on
any local issue.”
That’s the way to do it! How Liberal
Democrats
made the running on the Localism Bill
By
The Voice | Published 9th November 2011 - 10:15 am
Annette Brooke MP and Lord (Graham) Tope are the Lib Dem
Co-Chairs of the Parliamentary Policy Committee on Communities and
Local Government, and led the Lib Dem response to the Localism Bill.
Here they outline what they, working with colleagues in the party and
many beyond, helped achieve. (end
quote)
Local Government Association axed community empowerment from
Localism Bill
11th November 2011
The Local Government Association represents many hundreds (where is
their membership list?) of city and district councils. Their
income
from fees, paid out of public funds, is substantial.
Their chair bleats triumphantly that the LGA successfully lobbied to
remove from the Localism Bill one of the few potentially useful reforms
towards participative democracy and the much (by ConLibdem) touted
community empowerment.
If you disagree with this policy then ask your Council (if they are LGA
members) to formally complain or consider resigning from the Local
Government Association.
"We also worked hard for councils around the issue of local
referendums. .... The LGA succeeded in removing
these from the legislation."
(iniref:)
Congratulations. The LGA with accomplices from the building and
development industry lobbies and in cahoots with much of the ruling
class of the three major parties has succeeded to axe that part of the
Localism Bill which was probably the most important to the citizens of
this country.
You have done a great disservice to democracy in England. Repeated
surveys have shown that over seven out of ten British adults approve
the introduction of citizen instigated referenda in local and central
governance.
The Conservative/Liberal-Democrat 2010 coalition agreement contains the
following clear statement, p. 27,
"We will give residents the power to instigate local
referendums on any local issue."
INIREF COMMENT on
Conservative/Liberal-Democrats'
failure
to legislate for effective, user-friendly democracy. With a suggested
remedy.
Many things need to be done to improve our democracy. This article
(1) looks at e-petitions, in this case perhaps better dubbed a hybrid
of
citizens' proposition (initiative) and mass petition. What is the
context in which this apparently minor reform, or gimmick, may be
located?
Attempts by the current coalition to reform democracy have so far been
ill thought through, remote from theory, formulated apparently in haste
and in ignorance of experience made in other countries where democracy
is more advanced.
The Coalition has fumbled with democracy in local government. Their
showpiece proposal was in the "community empowerment" section of the
Localism Bill. This promised that local people would be able to put
forward a proposal and call a poll on any local issue (among issues
within the remit of the Council). The ease of triggering such a poll
was debated in Parliament, with a range of hurdles from between 5 and
30 percent of eligibly voters being suggested. Protests were received
by the government from builders, developers and local authority
associations that the reforms might allow voters to adversely influence
their profits and plans. Finally this Autumn the LibDems in the House
of Lords, with the agreement of the Communities minister and no hint of
protest from Her Majesty's opposition, scuttled the "community
empowerment" section. Sunk it in the Thames (2).
The Conservative/Liberal-Democrat 2010 coalition agreement contains the
following clear statement, p. 27,
“We will give residents the power to instigate local referendums on any
local issue.”
So, what will the Coalition do for democracy in central governance?
In Autumn 2009 at an early hustings-style meeting David Cameron
promised that he would introduce citizen-initiated referendum both at
local and national levels.
In contrast the Coalition agreement offers only a weaker sort of
participation, rather than the direct democracy waved tauntingly to
potential voters by David Cameron: "We will ensure that any petition
that secures l00,000 signatures will be eligible for formal debate in
Parliament. The petition with the most signatures will enable members
of the public to table a bill eligible to be voted on in Parliament."
Comparative study of modern democracy shows that the best option is a
combination of
"representative" democracy with elements of effective electoral
participation and control such as the citizens' proposition and
optional veto referendum. Our chances of moving towards this optimum
with the ruling coalition now in November 2011 look very slim.
The debacle of the Localism Bill has shown that democracy is far too
important to be included in a bill which contains many other topics
with no direct connection to the regulation of democratic governance.
Further, the low quality of content and debate about this legislation
in
and around Parliament, taken together with the sham-nature of
democracy introduced as "e-petition" show that for our
political rulers and elites a rapid programme of learning
about modern democracy is urgently needed. Such a learning process
could usefully be stimulated by the public
presentation of a law
proposal dedicated to the introduction of effective political
participation by citizens. Such a law proposal, a basis for what might
come to be termed The Democracy Bill, should establish principles of
democratic governance and for all levels of public governance from
parish to central state contain proposals which:
1) Establish or re-affirm the constitutional base of electoral action,
by ruling that all political and constitutional power in the state
stems from the people. This power can be exercised by electing
candidates and in legally binding ballots on public matters.
2) Introduce facilitatory ground rules for several instruments of
citizen-initiated democracy such as:
2.1) citizen law-proposal which can lead to legally binding ballot
2.2) citizen-initiated referendum with which law made by
Parliament and policy of government can be blocked, vetoed, revoked or
changed.
2.3) elector-initiated procedure to recall an elected Member of
Parliament, assembly or council and other publicly elected official.
----------------------------------------
1. A REPLY TO:
E-petitions, meant to be a force for good that reconnected people and
politics and helped to restore public confidence, may end up doing
exactly the opposite Editorial
The
Guardian,
Thursday
17
November
2011
2. Eighteen clauses concerning the citizens' right to initiate a local
referendum were deleted.
---------------------------------------------
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain http://www.iniref.org/
Tamworth angered by Localism Bill:
right to
"instigate" a referendum on any local issue removed by government
10th March 2012
Ken Forest wrote, "It may be that when the new Localism Bill gets
passed that would be the time to force a local referendum?" from This
is Tamworth, 9th March 2012
iniref informs:
The Conservative/Libdem government did promise in their coalition
agreement (2010) to introduce the citizens' right to "instigate" a
referendum on an local issue. Unfortunately this promise was broken:
the right to referendum was thrown out of the Localism Bill by the
Libdems and Tories. This example of citizen-led democracy, which is
supported by over seven out of ten British adults, does not appear in
the Localism Act which has already been passed as law of the land.
We entirely agree that the regulation of parish polls should be
improved. It is refreshing to see that a politician, the mayor of
Shipston, "“believed the Act needs strengthening" and the bar should be
set higher than six electors to call a parish poll ..." In contrast,
many politicians -- see the fate of the Localism Bill -- are keen to
restrict effective participation in public issues by the people who
elect them.
We wrote "
A major cause of low turn out is the poor design of the existing
referendum procedure. It takes just a handful of residents to demand
that a poll must be held. However, in order to ensure that there is
strong public interest, enough to guarantee a reasonable turn out, a
substantial proportion of the parish electorate should at an early
stage become involved by being approached and persuaded to endorse the
proposal. The ideal “hurdle” depends on the size of the community,
larger units such as a town requiring a smaller percentage."
Reform of the parish poll received a set back when a whole section
dealing with local democracy ("community empowerment") was struck out
of the Localism Bill after attack by liberal-democrat peers and
interventions by planning and business lobbyists hostile to stronger
local democracy.
It is to be hoped that the people's right to instigate referendum in
local government, and the parish poll, will soon be included in future
reform legislation by the Con/Libdem coalition government which
promised so much in this field.
--------------------------------------------------------
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain http://www.iniref.org/
Lords and lobbies demolish
democracy in Localism Bill
15th May 2012
Are you looking forward to getting together with some
like-minded
fellow-citizens to start up a local, district, town or city referendum?
New rules for referendum were promised, to feature in the coalition's
much touted Localism Act.
Well, forget it!
Many people will be angry to learn that a showpiece reform
which was supposed to deliver "power to the
people" has been drastically cut back.
"Localism Act 2010-12 Royal
Assent 15 November, 2011
Key areas
The provisions relating to councils include:
giving residents the power to instigate local
referendums on
any
local issue"
-----------------------------------------
This statement at services.parliament.uk
is now WRONG and the government has known for some months
that it is wrong.
A section of the Localism Bill "giving residents the power to instigate
local referendums on any local issue" (see detail below, 1) was removed
by the government
in
late 2011 after objections by lobbyists and an attack by liberal
"democrat" politicians in the House of Lords. Elected MPs in the House
of Commons, apart from a tiny group, did not resist this serious
setback to reform of local politics and democracy.
THE RESIDENTS' RIGHT TO "TO
INSTIGATE
LOCAL REFERENDUMS
ON ANY LOCAL ISSUE"
DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE NEW LOCALISM ACT
Footnote
1. Features of the Localism Bill
(December 2012) included:
– Citizens will be able to demand and obtain a referendum on any
local
issue "economic, social or environmental". One in twenty members of an
electorate must endorse the referendum proposal.
– All levels of local government are to be involved, e.g. the
Greater
London Area, cities, towns, counties and districts.
– Electronic collection of endorsements can be used.