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 Images.
Show Hide image

Theresa May missed an easy opportunity on EU citizens' rights

If the UK had made a big, open and generous offer, the diplomatic picture would be very different.

It's been seven hours and 365 days...and nothing compares to EU, at least as far as negotiations go.

First David Davis abandoned "the row of the summer" by agreeing to the EU's preferred negotiating timetable. Has Theresa May done the same in guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living here indefinitely?

Well, sort of. Although the PM has said that there have to be reciprocal arrangements for British citizens abroad, the difficulty is that because we don't have ID cards and most of our public services are paid for not out of an insurance system but out of general taxation, the issues around guaranteeing access to health, education, social security and residence are easier.

Our ability to enforce a "cut-off date" for new migrants from the European Union is also illusory, unless the government thinks it has the support in parliament and the logistical ability to roll out an ID card system by March 2019. (It doesn't.)

If you want to understand how badly the PM has managed Britain's Brexit negotiations, then the rights of the three million EU nationals living in Britain is the best place to start. The overwhelming support in the country at large for guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens, coupled with the deep unease among Conservative MPs about not doing so, meant that it was never a plausible bargaining chip. (That's before you remember that the bulk of the British diaspora in Europe lives in countries with small numbers of EU citizens living in the UK. You can't secure a good deal from Spain by upsetting the Polish government.) It just made three million people, their friends and their families nervous for a year and irritated our European partners, that's all.

If the United Kingdom had made a big, open and generous offer on citizens' rights a year ago, as Vote Leave recommended in the referendum, the diplomatic picture would be very different. (It would be better still if, again, as Vote Leave argued, we hadn't triggered Article 50, an exit mechanism designed to punish an emergent dictatorship that puts all the leverage on the EU27's side.)

As it happens, May's unforced errors in negotiations, the worsening economic picture and the tricky balancing act in the House of Commons means that Remainers can hope both for a softer exit and that they might yet convince voters that nothing compares to EU after all. (That a YouGov poll shows the number of people willing to accept EU rules in order to keep the economy going stretching to 58 per cent will only further embolden the soft Brexiteers.)

For Brexiteers, that means that if Brexit doesn't go well, they have a readymade scapegoat in the government. It means Remainers can credibly hope for a soft Brexit – or no Brexit at all. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.

0800 7318496