Democratic deficit
Jul. 8th, 2009 09:07 pmHere in Durham we have just had a European election; and only a European election. The result, as expected, is that the constituency's three seats in the European parliament will be held by the three main parties (local concillor Nigel Martin gives the figures here). I voted Green, and - while I wish the Green party had done better - think it was a vote well spent.
Among the additional figures unearthed by
durham_rambler is that, of the 402 'rejected' (i.e. spoiled) votes in the Durham County Council area, 150 were rejected for 'Voting for more than one Option'. I was very tempted to do that myself, not because I can't decide who to vote for but because - with apologies to
mevennen, in whose LJ I have already vented on this topic - I'm not happy to be told that yes, I have three representatives, but they must all come from the same party. I can't pick and mix, I have only a single vote, and it isn't even a single transferrable vote, because, unlike the Northern Irish we can't be trusted to number our preferences one, two and three.
The other interesting figure - again, for the DCC area - is that the turnout was 29.7%. Which on the one hand casts a rather different light on all the talk about parties "increasing their share of the vote", and, on the other hand, looks like a fairly solid majority for 'none of the above'. I wish I thought that was what's going on, but I think there's more 'can't be arsed' than principled abstention happening here.
On a third hand, it's hardly surprising that people can't be arsed, when we are being told, implicitly if not explicitly, that government can proceed perfectly adequately without our vote. And no, I'm not at this point referring to the New Labour habit of filling the cabinet with people who have been given peerages to enable them to take the job, rather than with the elected representatives of the nation.
That may come later, but for the time being I am complaining that my local council has been abolished - local as in the City council. Where we used to have both a district council and a county council, now we have one unitary authority, rebranded as Durham County Council. No doubt this has advantages as well as drawbacks, but the only ones I've heard are that it's cheaper and more efficient. The case for efficiency assumes that district councils can't co-operate to achieve the same result, the case that it's cheaper (since it doesn't seem to be - council tax has risen, not fallen) asserts that well, it would have cost even more otherwise. I don't want to write any blank cheques here, but democratic representation must be worth paying something for, mustn't it?
So now the press are talking about how Labour no longer holds a single county council - which isn't quite true, because Durham County Council is still Labour controlled. Perhaps we are being overlooked because we didn't have an election. Then again, perhaps we are still Labour controlled because we didn't have an election. Had the council not been transformed into a unitary authority in April, we would have been due an election now, but for whatever reason the council felt unable to hold an election so soon after conversion (Cornwall managed it, apparently, but may now be regretting it), so the moment of truth is deferred.
Can you blame people for feeling that voting may be optional?
Among the additional figures unearthed by
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
The other interesting figure - again, for the DCC area - is that the turnout was 29.7%. Which on the one hand casts a rather different light on all the talk about parties "increasing their share of the vote", and, on the other hand, looks like a fairly solid majority for 'none of the above'. I wish I thought that was what's going on, but I think there's more 'can't be arsed' than principled abstention happening here.
On a third hand, it's hardly surprising that people can't be arsed, when we are being told, implicitly if not explicitly, that government can proceed perfectly adequately without our vote. And no, I'm not at this point referring to the New Labour habit of filling the cabinet with people who have been given peerages to enable them to take the job, rather than with the elected representatives of the nation.
That may come later, but for the time being I am complaining that my local council has been abolished - local as in the City council. Where we used to have both a district council and a county council, now we have one unitary authority, rebranded as Durham County Council. No doubt this has advantages as well as drawbacks, but the only ones I've heard are that it's cheaper and more efficient. The case for efficiency assumes that district councils can't co-operate to achieve the same result, the case that it's cheaper (since it doesn't seem to be - council tax has risen, not fallen) asserts that well, it would have cost even more otherwise. I don't want to write any blank cheques here, but democratic representation must be worth paying something for, mustn't it?
So now the press are talking about how Labour no longer holds a single county council - which isn't quite true, because Durham County Council is still Labour controlled. Perhaps we are being overlooked because we didn't have an election. Then again, perhaps we are still Labour controlled because we didn't have an election. Had the council not been transformed into a unitary authority in April, we would have been due an election now, but for whatever reason the council felt unable to hold an election so soon after conversion (Cornwall managed it, apparently, but may now be regretting it), so the moment of truth is deferred.
Can you blame people for feeling that voting may be optional?