Martin Partington: Spotlight on the Justice System

Keeping the English Legal System under review

Posts Tagged ‘elections

Redrawing Parliamentary constituency boundaries?

leave a comment »

The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 had two objectives. The first was to authorise the holding of a referendum on whether the ‘first part the post’ voting system used in general elections should change to one that offered some proportional representation. The idea was rejected.

The second was that the number of MPs in the House of Commons should be reduced from 650 to 600, and that the population size of constituencies should be made more equal.

It was originally intended that these measures should be introduced for the 2015 General Election, but the Lib Dem members of the Coalition Government scuppered the idea, as they could not persuade the Conservative partners in the Coalition Government to take House of Lords reform seriously.

Meanwhile the Boundary Commissions of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have been beavering away, developing proposals for realigning parliamentary boundaries. They have just (October 2017) published a second round of consultations on their latest proposals. Final report reports are due in 2018.

The unknown question at the moment is whether the present Government will in fact go ahead with the proposed reduction in the numbers of seats. Many have argued that the fact that Mrs May does not have an overall majority in the present Parliament will mean that she cannot afford to run the risk of defeat on any proposal to fully implement the Boundary Commissions’ proposals.

Each Boundary Commission has its own website. The one for England is at https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/2018-review/

 

Advertisements

Written by lwtmp

October 30, 2017 at 4:55 pm

Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 and the General Election 2017

leave a comment »

There were those who thought that the enactment of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 meant that there would be general elections only every 5 years, unless very special circumstances arose. Enacted by the Cameron-Clegg  government, it was designed to give some assurance that the Coalition Government would stay in power and would not be able to call a general election just on the whim of the Prime Minister.

What few people appreciated, however, was that the terms of the legislation did not in fact prevent the Prime Minister – now Theresa May – from putting in process the steps that would enable her to call an election, at a time when she was seeking to strengthen her position as Prime Minister, given her apparent strong position in the opinion polls. All she needed was a vote passed by a 2/3rds majority of MPs to trigger an early election.

As we now know, things did not work out like that. Her gamble did not pay off – at least not in the way she anticipated. So where are we with the Fixed-term Parliaments Act?

It remains on the statute book, and there are some who think that there will be a General Election – under the terms of the Act – in 2022. Political reality suggests, however, that the next election will take place before then. Exactly when will depend on specific factors such as  strength of the Prime Minister’s position,  and the progress of the Brexit negotiations.

I would not be surprised if, at some date in the not too distant future, steps were taken to repeal the legislation – unless perhaps there is another period of Coalition Government in the UK.

Written by lwtmp

July 8, 2017 at 3:19 pm

Prisoners’ Voting Rights: Supreme Court judgement

leave a comment »

The decision of the UK Supreme Court on Prisoners’ voting rights, published on 16 October 2013, seems to me to be rather more nuanced than much of the media coverage I have read and heard.

The case which reached the Supreme Court involved two appeals, one from England  (Chester) and one from Scotland (McKeoch). Only the Chester case invoked the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. Both cases also raised a question of EU law.

The issue under EU law arose from the focus in the EU on the core concerns of ensuring equal treatment between EU citizens residing in Member States other than that of their nationality, and so safeguarding freedom of movement within the EU. However, eligibility to vote in Member States is basically a matter for national legislatures, and a matter for each individual legislature to determine. In any event, the EU legal principle of non-discrimination would still not be engaged. Convicted prisoners serving their sentence are not in a comparable position to persons not in prison. Thus, in both cases, the Supreme Court held that EU law did not apply.

As regards the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998, the Supreme Court noted that in a series of cases (Hirst (No 2) v UK, Greens v UK and Scoppola v Italy) the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) had held that a blanket prohibition of this nature is an indiscriminate restriction on a vitally important right and, as such, incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No 1, the duty to hold free and fair elections.

Under the HRA, the Supreme Court is required to “take into account” decisions of the ECtHR, not necessarily to follow them. This enables the national courts to engage in a constructive dialogue with the ECtHR. However, the prohibition on prisoner voting in the UK has now been considered by the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR twice and, on each occasion, found to be incompatible with Article 3 Protocol 1. In these circumstances, it would have to involve some truly fundamental principle of law or the most egregious oversight or misunderstanding before it could be appropriate for the Supreme Court to refuse to follow Grand Chamber decisions of the ECtHR. The ban on prisoner voting is not, in the Supreme Court’s view, a fundamental principle of law in the UK, and the circumstances do not justify a departure from the ECtHR’s caselaw.

Thus contrary to some reporting, the Supreme Court has upheld the ECtHR’s view  that the UK’s blanket ban on voting rights is incompatible with the European Convention. The Supreme Court did not issue a declaration of incompatibility, however, because that is a discretionary remedy; the Court had already issued such a declaration; the Government was undertaking work to respond to the initial declaration; it was not for the Court to say how the Government should ultimately resolve the matter; and that therefore, being a discretionary remedy, the Court would not exercise its discretion in this case.

So the ball is still very much in the Government’s court.

The full judgement of the Supreme Court and a press release prepared by the Court are available at http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/news/latest-judgments.html

Written by lwtmp

October 17, 2013 at 3:50 pm