How 10 million UK voters could be lost

Reform to voter registration could have a far more wide-ranging effect than the boundary changes.

The head of the Electoral Commission has called it the biggest change to voting since the introduction of universal franchise. Boundary changes? No. While Westminster and the media have focused on proposed changes to constituencies, another reform could have an even more profound effect, allowing as many as 10 million voters -- predominantly poor, young, and likely to vote Labour -- to fall off the electoral register entirely.

The government wants to introduce individual voter registration rather than household registration, before the 2015 election. Essentially, this makes it an act of choice rather than civic duty to engage with the political system. This is compounded by ministers' surprise proposal that it should no longer be compulsory to co-operate with electoral registration officers when they compiling the register. Refusing to comply is currently an offence which can carry a fine of up to £1,000.

There are several obvious problems. There are clear incentives for people not to register, as the electoral roll is used for jury service and to tackle credit card fraud. But more importantly, it is difficult to see any justification for further removing already disenfranchised communities from the political process.

According to the Guardian, which appears to be the only paper to report this story today, MPs on the political and constitutional reform select committee have been interviewing experts this week about the implications, and are "genuinely shocked" at their findings.

The testimony of experts simply follows steps of logic, so it is difficult to see why the MPs are so surprised. Jenny Russell, the chair of the Electoral Commission, explained:

"It is logical to suggest that those that do not vote in elections will not see the point of registering to vote and it is possible that the register may therefore go from a 90 per cent completeness that we currently have to 60-65 per cent."

It is highly likely that this will vary greatly between areas. John Stewart, chairman of the electoral registration officers, predicts that the drop-off will be around 10 per cent in "the leafy shires", but 30 per cent in inner city areas.

This means that the fall-off will be disproportionately focused on the young, the poor, and ethnic minorities. This could have significant political impact, as all of these groups are more likely to vote Labour when they do vote. The greatest effect will be in 2020, as the boundaries for that election will be based on the voluntary individual register compiled in 2015. If 30 per cent of voters in inner city Labour areas have disappeared, the Boundary Commission will have to reduce these seats, because its sole objective is to equalise the size of the electorate -- the number of registered voters, not the number of people -- ignoring natural borders.

However, these party-political concerns should be secondary to the profound implications this could have for democracy in the UK. Already, 3 million people eligible to vote do not register, despite the fact that co-operation with electoral officers is compulsory. Huge swathes of our society are already disenfranchised, as this summer's riots painfully showed. This is not the time to compound that disconnect.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

How the Brexit referendum has infantilised British politics

Politicians like Boris are not characters in a fantasy show. If they aspire to high office then they must be held to high standards. 

Ancient Greece is the cradle of modern Europe.  From its primordial soup emerged so much of our culture, our language and our politics. Of the three, it seems to be the politics that has made the least progress over the centuries. In fact, if you dropped an Athenian into the middle of politics in the UK today, they would find themselves right at home. This is not because of the direct democracy, the demagogues or the xenophobia, though all are worryingly familiar, but because of the style of the debate itself.

To understand politics in ancient Greece you have to grasp that they had no concept of ‘the truth’. This is not to say that they were liars, simply that the framework by which we judge credibility was not one they would have recognised. The myths and legends that dominated their discourse were neither thought of as being ‘true’ or ‘made-up’, they simply were, and the fact of their being known allowed them to be used as reference points for debate and argument.

Modern politics seems to be sliding back towards this infant state, and nothing embodies this more than the childish slanging match that passes for an EU referendum debate. In the past six years the UK has had three great exercises of direct democracy and it is safe to say none of the campaigns have added a great deal to sum of human enlightenment. Who remembers the claims that babies would die as a result of the special voting machines needed to conduct AV elections? But the EU referendum has taken this to new extremes. The In campaign are executing what is a fairly predictable strategy, the kind of thing that is normal fare in politics these days. Dossiers of doomsday scenarios. Experts wheeled out. Statistics embellished to dazzle the public. One can question the exact accuracy, but at least you feel they operate within certain parameters of veracity.

What is happening on the Out side, in contrast, is the collective nervous breakdown of a large section of the political establishment. Just this week we have had Penny Mordaunt, a government minister, flat-out denying the UK’s right to veto new accessions to the EU. We have seen the fiercely independent Institute for Fiscal Studies denounced as a propaganda arm for Brussels. Most bizarrely, Boris Johnson even tried to claim that the EU had banned bananas from being sold in bunches larger than three, something that nobody who has actually visited a shop in the UK could possibly believe. These kind of claims stretch our political discourse way beyond the crudely drawn boundaries of factual accuracy that normally constrain what politicians can do and say. Surely the people peddling these myths can never be taken seriously again?

But they will. You just watch as Johnson, Mordaunt and the rest slide effortlessly back into public life. Instead of being ridiculed for their unhinged statements, they will be rewarded with plush offices and ministerial cars. Journalists will continue to hang on every word they say. Their views will be published in newspapers, their faces will flit ceaselessly across our TV screens. Johnson is even touted as a plausible future leader of our country, possibly before the year is out. A man who over his meandering career seems to have held every possible opinion on any topic you care to name. Or rather, perhaps it is more accurate to say that the character we call Boris has no opinions at all, simply interests. The public, who have scant regard for a political class they believe to be untrustworthy, seem to have taken a shine to a man who is perhaps the most fundamentally dishonest of Westminster’s denizens.

What does all this say about the state of our politics? If it is true that we are seeing the advent of ‘post-truth’ politics, as some have argued, then it has grown out of the corrosive relationship between politicians and the public. It is both a great irony and a great tragedy that the very fact that people distrust all politicians is what has permitted the most opportunistic to peddle more and more outlandish claims. Political discourse has ceased to be a rational debate with agreed parameters and, like the ancient Greeks, more resembles a series of competing myths. Claims are assessed not by their accuracy but by their place in the grand narrative which is politics.

But the truth matters. For the ancients it was the historian Thucydides who shifted the dial decisively in favour of fact over fiction. In writing his Histories he decided that he wanted to know what actually happened, not just what made a good story. In a similar vein British politics needs to take a step back towards the real world. Broadcasters launching fact-checkers are a good start, but we need to up the level of scrutiny on political claims and those who make them. At times it feels like the press operate as a kind of counterweight to Game of Thrones author George RR Martin, going easy on much-loved characters for fear of upsetting the viewers.

But politicians like Boris are not characters in a fantasy show. If they aspire to high office then they must be held to high standards. If politics is the art of the possible, then political discourse is the art of saying what you can get away with. Until there are consequences for the worst offenders, the age of post-truth politics will continue suck the life from our public debate.