3 Reasons for low voter engagement
11. Low voter participation is a widespread phenomenon
and not one unique to the United Kingdom. Voter turnout has been
falling in many countries for decades. There is no single reason
for the decline in levels of voter engagement, in terms of registration
rates and turnout figures, in the UK or elsewhere, but we have
received evidence about several factors that are likely to affect
people's inclination to vote and also their likelihood to be registered
to vote in the first place. These include:
· Political
disengagement and dissatisfaction;
· The value of
voting, and
· Concerns about
where power lies.
We consider each of these issues below.
Political disengagement and dissatisfaction
12. One of the strongest arguments that came through
in our evidence was that low levels of turnout at elections, and
also to some extent low levels of registration, were a manifestation
of a broader sense of political disengagement and dissatisfaction
with politics and politicians.[11]
Dr Ruth Fox, Director of the Hansard Society, told us:
voting levels are a manifestation of the bigger
problem of disengagement across the board, linked to a declining
sense of the efficacy of politics generally and their role in
it, and a sense that the parties are all the same, the politicians
are all the same, they are not like us, it does not make any difference.[12]
Similarly, the British Academy stated: "British
society has become, for the most part, disengaged with politics.
[…] in the case of British voters it is important to understand
the scale and depth of their disenchantment."[13]
Its submission went on: "Most citizens embrace the principle
of democracy; the issue is that politics is not delivering against
that ideal."
13. It is important not to take evidence of low levels
of participation at elections, or dissatisfaction with current
parties or politicians, as an indication that people do not care
about politics and political issues. Very few of our witnesses
believed the general public was apathetic, and most witnesses
took the opposite view—stating that members of the public
were interested in issues that affected their lives, but that
this did not necessarily lead people to vote. Ruth Fox told us
that members of the public are highly interested in public policy
issues,[14] and
David Babbs, the Director of 38 Degrees, told us:
you have people who care a lot, are by no kind
of ordinary measure of the word apathetic but don't see the point
in registering to vote or don't vote. I think you have to recognise
that as part of the problem if you are going to get to the right
solution.[15]
NEGATIVE VIEWS OF POLITICIANS AND
POLITICS
14. Several of our witnesses, and a large number
of written submissions—particularly those submitted by members
of the public—stated that politicians and political parties
were held in poor regard by many. The views set out in the submissions
we received included:
· politicians
not respecting and not listening to the public;[16]
· politicians
not being trustworthy and not keeping promises;[17]
· MPs just following
the party line and whips;[18]
· MPs only being
willing to engage with the public in a limited way;[19]
· the conduct
of politicians being off-putting (for example, at Prime Minister's
Questions);[20]
· there are too
many career politicians;[21]
· the main parties
are too similar or do not appeal to voters,[22]
and
· politicians
are not representative of the public.[23]
Many similar views—in addition to several other
points—were expressed by members of the public when we held
an informal discussion on these issues in Sheffield.[24]
The importance of trust was raised several times, and Sheffield
for Democracy told us that this was the crucial reason that people
were dissatisfied with current politicians.[25]
Research undertaken by Professor Sarah Birch, of the University
of Glasgow, demonstrated that "people's propensity to vote
is linked to their trust in politicians".[26]
15. There are broad negative stereotypes about
Parliament and Government—two separate institutions—which
go beyond healthy and necessary scepticism and into a cynicism
which if unaddressed could undermine the very basis of our representative
democracy.
Role for politicians
16. We have been told that politicians and political
parties have a central role in improving voter engagement and
political engagement more broadly. Several of our witnesses told
us that outreach by politicians was very important,[27]
and there was a need for greater communication and responsiveness
between politicians and the public.[28]
A paper produced by the Electoral Commission also stated
that "the key to any significant change lies in the hands
of politicians and campaigners".[29]
We have received various suggestions for how politicians could
better engage with the public—including producing short
videos on issues about which they received a large amount of correspondence,[30]
making better use of e-mail to engage in two-way communications,[31]
and having a monthly live TV programme where the Prime Minister
had conversations with members of the public.[32]
David Babbs, Executive Director of 38 Degrees, told us about
some "very positive" experiences that "a relatively
small minority" of their members had had with their local
MP, and told us: "I think some of those MPs probably have
things to teach the rest of you."[33]
We also received evidence that there is much greater scope
for politicians to use new and social media to make direct contact
with the public, unmediated by the traditional media.[34]
It is necessary to bear in mind the finite time and resources
available to MPs, but the fact that some MPs are being praised
shows that better engagement is possible.
FAILURE OF TRADITIONAL POLITICAL
MECHANISMS
17. Several of our witnesses stated that although
people were politically interested and active there was limited
opportunity for that interest to feed into current political mechanisms.
Professor Matt Flinders of the University of Sheffield stated
that "the traditional political structures have no way of
absorbing or tapping into or understanding that energy",
and people were disaffected with current political institutions.[35]
Professor Hendrik Wagenaar told us that there "there is a
huge amount of informal participation going on" and "there
is a much wider repertoire of political engagement out there than
just voting".[36]
Democratic Audit also noted that "public engagement
in politics beyond the ballot box has actually increased; more
people see non-electoral participation such as signing a petition
or attending a protest as a substitute rather than complementary
to voting."[37]
Cybersalon.org told us that "young people are very
active on single issue campaigns, signing on-line petitions,
attending issues-related meet-ups, voting via allocating
money on crowdsourcing online platforms to their chosen projects, participating
in street protests, and even arranging sit-ins", but that
they did not "engage with traditional politics".[38]
POLITICAL PARTIES
18. Membership of political parties has fallen drastically
in recent decades. There can be no clearer example of declining
levels of public engagement with traditional political mechanisms.[39]
A number of submissions stated that this fall in membership was
not just a problem for political parties, but also for wider engagement
and participation.[40]
19. We have been told that both the structure of
political parties, and the way in which they are funded, should
be reformed in such a way as to increase voter engagement. John
E Strafford told us that the structure of political parties did
not allow for "meaningful participation", and that there
was therefore little incentive to be a member of a political party.[41]
He suggested that individual party members should have a
greater say over party matters, and that there should also be
greater party activity at a regional level.
20. The Electoral Reform Society told us that "Reforming
the party funding system is an important step in restoring confidence
in the operation of the political system",[42]
and we have received several suggestions for how party funding
could be reformed, although by no means every submission we received
stated that there was a need to reform party funding. Several
organisations argued that state funding of political parties needed
to be considered.[43]
Professor Susan Banducci and Associate Professor Daniel
Stevens, from the University of Exeter, argued that direct funding
to political parties should be increased to enable them to do
more campaigning and increase public awareness of elections.[44]
Other evidence we received called for a cap on donations
to political parties, potentially with a transitional period.[45]
Dr Nick Anstead and Professor Sonia Livingstone argued that
the reliance in the UK on caps on spending, rather than donations,
meant that parties relied on a small pool of donors and did not
need to draw on ordinary citizens for financial support.[46]
They also argued that this "has the potential to suggest
a conflict of interest and undermine public trust in the political
process." They stated that although state funding was one
possible solution, this would undermine the relationship between
parties and the public, and it would therefore be more desirable
to match funds donated by the public, or have a system whereby
voters were able to nominate a party to receive their share of
state funds. Unlock Democracy also called for a system of donations
to parties being matched by the state, to encourage parties not
just to mobilise supporters more widely than they do at present.[47]
Tim Knight, a member of the public, told us that spending
by parties "could/should be limited to state funding in proportion
to popular support at that level."[48]
Another option to spread ownership of political parties
could be to give people the option of making a small tax free
donation to the political party of their choice by choosing to
on their income tax return, in effect "crowdsourcing"
the budget of political parties.
21. Centralisation of political party activity,
not least to aid party discipline and the demands of the media
and messaging, is a recurrent theme in the decline in the local
strength and activity of political parties. The unitary system
in the UK, where all roads lead to Whitehall, means that political
parties focus more and more on power at the centre and less on
effective engagement not only with their membership but also with
the public. This "hollowing out" must have a clear adverse
impact on how people engage with elections, as well as politics
more broadly. Political parties have become leader-centric. We
recommend that party leaders consider how party structures could
be reformed and localised to better engage with the public. We
will write to each party leader and request that they engage with
the Committee directly in respect of this recommendation. We look
forward to their responses and to taking proposals forward.
22. We have previously called for progress to
be made on broadening the base of party funding: this is an area
where reform could strengthen local party structures, increase
confidence in the independence of political parties and therefore
strengthen politics more broadly. Cross-party talks on party funding
will be most successful if no pre-conditions are set, but some
members of the Committee believe that increased taxpayer funding
of political parties is not likely to be part of the solution.
We recommend that all-party talks on party funding are resumed
urgently with a view to reaching a swift, agreed settlement before
the general election.
ROLE OF THE MEDIA
23. As part of our inquiry we have considered the
role of the media as the main arbiter of the public's perception
of MPs, Parliament and Government, and also its role in raising
awareness of elections and political engagement more broadly.
Several pieces of evidence noted the focus of the media on "conflict"
and "the very worst of party politics".[49]
Unlock Democracy considered that although there was "little
evidence that the media has any significant negative impact on
political participation […] the constant media focus on scandal
and negative stories is unlikely to have any positive effect."[50]
By its nature much of politics, policy making and public
consultation is lengthy and unexciting and does not fit easily
in to an ever diverse and highly competitive media agenda which
has to produce stories 24 hours a day. That said, we also received
evidence which highlighted the importance of an independent press
in scrutinising politicians.[51]
It is also broadly accepted that much of the media has its own
political agenda.
24. We asked Ruth Fox of the Hansard Society what
role the media played in people's political engagement. She told
us that:
we did a study isolating all the drivers we know
about political disengagement [...] and it was better for your
political citizenship not to read a newspaper than it was to read
a tabloid because it feeds that cynical anti- politics approach.[52]
Birmingham 'Success' Group, a project funded by the
European Commission's 'Europe for Citizens' programme,
which brings together groups of young people to discuss
citizenship, stated: "the national tabloid press is particularly
guilty of sensationalising any political issue or event which
can be presented as running counter to the 'national interest'
and any negative aspect of the private life of politicians".[53]
Noting that the effect of the media could be different on different
audiences, Professor Charlie Beckett stated: "It is safest
to say that networked media has definitely made engagement easier
for the 'already-interested' and marginally easier for the occasionally
active. There may be negative effects for the wider population
such as disillusion, dysfunction and lack of delivery."[54]
Stephen Fisher, Associate Professor at the University of
Oxford, also noted the complex relationship the media could have
with political engagement and participation:
While some research shows that the media can
enhance participation by informing and motivating people, other
studies show that it can also put people off politics and voting.
The effects depend on the nature of the source, content and context
of the media coverage, and so overall there might be very little
net effect on participation.[55]
25. We also received evidence from representatives
of the media. The National Union of Journalists stated that the
media—and the NUJ represents people from broadcast media,
newspapers, news agencies, magazines, books, public relations,
communications, online media and photography—had a very
important role to play in relation to voter engagement, as it
was "the main source of information for most people on political
parties and their policies, politicians, party manifestos,
opinion polls and political analysis as well as political gossip
and scandal."[56]
26. Unlike other news outlets, the BBC exists to
serve the public interest, and one of the public purposes set
out in the BBC's Royal Charter is "sustaining citizenship
and civil society".[57]
In order to fulfil this purpose, the BBC is required to
give regard to the "need to promote understanding of the
UK political system".[58]
Both Ric Bailey, the BBC's Chief Adviser on politics, and
Sue Inglish, Head of Political Programmes for the BBC, rejected
the idea that the BBC was cynical in its portrayal of politics,
but stated that coverage could be sceptical. Sue Inglish told
us: "We have to be robust in our questioning. Cynical is
something that we absolutely do not want to do and I do not think
that the BBC does do that."[59]
In terms of the broader portrayal of politics by the media,
Ric Bailey told us:
I think when it is done properly and when politics
is shown in the raw as it were I think people will engage with
it and, like Sue, I am not as pessimistic as you are. It may feel
here as if it would be more under siege but I think engagement
in politics generally is not declining.[60]
27. One of the areas we questioned the BBC on was
their approach to Europe. In 2005 a review commissioned by the
BBC's board of governors and an independent panel concluded that
"there is a widespread perception that the BBC suffers from
certain forms of cultural and unintentional bias" and that
"the BBC's coverage of EU news needs to be improved and to
be made more demonstrably impartial".[61]
When we asked the BBC about their coverage
on immigration and the European Union Ric Bailey told us:
I think the BBC has already said that there were
elements of that story—and I don't think it was just the
BBC and I don't think it was even just the media, perhaps Parliament
itself—and I think there were elements of that where we
were a bit slow to talk about it. I think the BBC takes its responsibility
for that as much as anybody else did. As you say, I think that
is something, particularly through some of these other different
outlets where there is quite a close interaction with the audience
and we do pick up these things more quickly through social media
then perhaps we used to, where we are more responsive and able
to feed back into the general debate; that sort of thing is happening.
In general terms, I think we are less likely to miss it now than
perhaps we were 10 years ago because we are perhaps better engaged
in talking to audiences than we were in the past.[62]
28. The National Union of Journalists also raised
concerns about the power of large newspaper groups, telling us
"media plurality is vital for a healthy, functioning democracy"
and arguing that there should be a limit on the market share private
firms are able to reach.[63]
The NUJ also stated that the local media "plays an
important role in local democracy and again is a vital source
of information for voters in local elections", but that decisions
of newspaper groups were undermining this role. Democratic Audit
also noted that coverage of local elections in local media could
have a positive impact on voter turnout.[64]
29. The televised debates ahead of the 2010 general
election were an innovation which we were told had had a positive
impact on voter engagement, particularly on young voters. Ric
Bailey told us the debates were a big success "both in broadcasting
terms but also in audience engagement terms".[65]
Sue Inglish told us: "I think they were such an important
contribution to the electoral process that I would be very disappointed
if they did not happen again, and we will work very hard to make
sure that they do."[66]
BBC, ITV, Sky and Channel 4 have now announced plans to hold three
debates ahead of the 2015 general election, to include one between
the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, one also including
the Deputy Prime Minister, and one with all three and also the
leader of UKIP.[67]
Noting the possible positive impact of media exposure, Professor
Susan Banducci and Dr Daniel Stevens recommended allowing more
free air time to political parties, as citizens who have been
exposed to an election campaign through the media have a higher
probability of voting than those who did not see much of the campaign
coverage.[68]
30. Glenn Gottfried, Quantitative Research Fellow
at the Institute of Public Policy Research, told us that the media
could have a better relationship with politicians, telling us
that if the dynamic were to change:
politicians would be confident enough to answer
the questions that people are asked in the media, and the media
would be respectful enough not to try to make the politicians
look like they had gone off message or said something that was
not entirely in keeping with other people in their party, and
respect politicians when they are trying to be direct and truthful
and answering questions in as honest a way as possible. A bit
more respect between politicians and the media probably would
go a long way towards reducing the perception that politicians
are constantly spinning, which people really appear not to like.[69]
Other evidence argued that the media should provide
"more positive news around the importance to get engaged
in local or national democracy".[70]
Damian Lyon Lowes, Chief Executive of polling company Survation,
called for "more direct communication" by "Parliament,
councils, the Electoral Commission, everybody who is in charge
of elections", bypassing the media.[71]
Some media outlets have also specifically taken up the cause of
increasing voter engagement, with the Daily Mirror working with
Bite the Ballot and others on a campaign to get one million new
voters to register to vote.[72]
31. The media plays an essential role in informing
the public about political news, in relation both to elections
and politics more broadly. While it should be understood that
public education and increasing levels of voter engagement is
not necessarily a priority for news media, we note that the BBC
does have a clear duty, through its Charter, to sustain citizenship
and civil society. Innovations such as televised debates ahead
of general elections have proved to be popular as television events
but have not resulted in sustainable engagement with the political
process. We have also received evidence that relentless and disproportionate
focus of the media on negative news stories and "the very
worst of party politics" can have a negative impact on how
the public perceives politicians and the political system, reinforcing
a cynicism that makes people less likely to vote. It is our view
that politicians and media outlets could both do more to move
the media focus away from denigration and trivialisation and more
towards analysis and reporting, with the hope of better engaging
the public with issues that concern them to make politics and
elections more relevant. This is a sensitive area with strong
default positions on all sides but, again, the future of democracy
in the UK demands that business as usual is not an option. We
intend to hold a summit with willing participants in the New Year
to start a discussion on whether, and how, the media and politics
can interact for the greater good of a healthy democracy.
The value of voting
32. A significant theme in the written evidence submitted
by members of the public was that they felt there was no point
in voting, or that their vote did not make a difference, particularly
when they lived in a safe seat, where the party of the elected
representative was unlikely to change.[73]
Various witnesses gave their view that the First Past the
Post (FPTP) voting system, used for general and local elections,
had a negative effect on people's perception of voting, and the
value of individual votes,[74]
as well as meaning there was little incentive for political
parties to engage with the majority of voters.[75]
That said, others have argued in favour of the First Past
the Post voting system, citing the simplicity of the system and
the fact that the constituency's representative is the one favoured
by more electors than any other.[76]
Will Brett, Head of Media of the Electoral Reform Society, stated:
Lots of voters in safe seats are going to struggle
to see the point and if they have lots of other pressures on their
time and resources, if they have limited resources, the point
of voting is going to be harder to understand. I think that is
part of the problem.[77]
Similarly, David Babbs, Executive Director at
38 Degrees, told us:
There are a significant number of 38 Degrees
members, a minority but I think a revealing minority, who are
very active with 38 Degrees but don't vote and are not registered
to vote because they don't see the point. I think this an important
point to make because I am sure there are some people who are
apathetic, […] but I don't think fundamentally that is the
problem. It is the perception of it being worthwhile or it making
a difference.[78]
33. Dr Stephen Barber stated that a "suspicion
by the electorate that their vote does not matter perhaps goes
to the heart of the structural weaknesses with our Westminster
model and first-past-the-post electoral system."[79]
He highlighted research which had found the number of marginal
seats—where there is likely to be a change in the party
of the member elected—was as few as 85, representing no
more than 15% of the present 650 constituencies. He also noted
that the FPTP voting system meant that the number of MPs elected
for each party bore little relation to the number of votes the
parties received at a national level. A further complaint against
the FPTP electoral system was that it "severely disadvantages
smaller parties with the effect of reducing real voter choice."[80]
That said, Dr Barber also acknowledged that levels of turnout
in marginal seats differed little from levels of turnout in safe
seats.
Where power lies
34. Several written submissions referred to the structure
of government in the UK and relationships with international bodies
as reasons for low voter engagement. A number of these highlighted
dissatisfaction with the relationship between the UK and EU as
a reason for people not voting.[81]
Mr Hugh Eveleigh, for example, told us: "I imagine
that many folk feel that the EU has ultimate control and what
is the point of bothering as we have no control on what it does."[82]
Others stated that there was likely to be greater interest
in politics and elections at a local level if local government
were reinvigorated,[83]
potentially by more substantial devolution to local government.[84]
On this point, Professor Sarah Birch told us that "if more
genuine powers were given to local government", it would
enable local councillors to better mobilise constituents, as they
would be able to have less constrained campaign messages.[85]
Nigel Slack, of Sheffield for Democracy, took the view that
devolving greater power and finance to local government was "vital
to reinvigorating local politics in particular".[86]
The Local Government Association stated that the "national
framework of local democracy needs to be renewed to ensure decisions
about local arrangements are made by people who are accountable
to local voters."[87]
Similarly, the 4 Freedoms Party (UK EPP), a pro-EU political
party, and the British Committee of the European People's Party
stated that "British local government enjoys insufficient subsidiarity from
Westminster" and that this "over-centralisation of power
within the UK is increasing voter disengagement".[88]
35. Overcentralisation of power in Whitehall has
had a clear adverse impact on how people engage with and perceive
politics and elections for the localities and nations of the UK.
Measures that appropriately devolve decision-making and power
from Whitehall to a lower level might have been thought to be
likely to have a positive impact on engagement with non-Westminster
politics and elections, although this failed to happen in respect
of elected police and crime commissioners. This sentiment is not
just evidenced in Scotland but is also prevalent in England, Wales,
Northern Ireland and the localities within. While devolving power
to the localities would be an improvement most political parties
believe it should not stop there but also go deeper to neighbourhoods
and communities, so-called "double devolution".
36. This Committee has produced a number of reports
over the course of the Parliament looking at the relationship
between local and central government and urging much greater devolution;
we are consulting, through "A New Magna Carta?"
on several options for a new structure and constitutional framework
for the UK, and we are currently undertaking an inquiry looking
at how devolution should take place across the United Kingdom.
In a time of political volatility, clarity about a future democratic
settlement is vital. It is clear that engagement with politics
and elections at a local level suffers from overcentralisation,
and the rhetorical commitment of all parties needs to find concrete
form in substantial changes to the devolution settlement across
the UK to reinvigorate local politics. We recommend that,
at a time when manifestos are being written, party leaderships
make real, not least in England, the undertakings given to ending
overcentralisation and to extending devolution, not least as a
means of engaging the electorate much more in deciding their own
affairs.
The views of "non-voters"
37. One of our witnesses, Fran O'Leary, Director
of Strategy and Innovation at Lodestone, a communications consultancy,
gave evidence to us on the basis of a survey she had commissioned
into the attitudes of "non-voters" as compared with
voters. The survey was conducted by the polling company Survation,
and "non-voters" were defined as "those who did
not vote in the 2010 General Election (this includes those who
were too young or otherwise ineligible to vote in May 2010)."[89]
Of the respondents to the survey, over half of those who
had not voted in the 2010 general election had never voted in
a general election.[90]
This included 23% of those aged over 55, who must therefore
have missed at least eight consecutive general elections. Specific
reasons those who did not vote in the 2010 general election gave
for not doing so included:
· "27%
said they didn't believe their vote would make a difference;
· 25% said they
thought the parties/candidates were all the same;
· 19% said they
were not interested in politics, and
· 18% said they
did not have enough information/knowledge to choose."[91]
Accessibility of voting was also highlighted in the
survey results. Patrick Brione, Director of Research at Survation,
told us:
from our poll when we asked non-voters what their
main reason was why they did not vote, as well as the large number
that said things like, "I don't believe my vote will make
a difference" and so on, there were 9% that said they were
not able to access a polling station or get a postal ballot as
their main reason. That is a small portion but I think it is still
a significant number of people that said they have obstacles in
some way.[92]
38. We heard that respondents to the survey who did
not vote were "very interested in issues like how their kids
are schooled, or making sure that they have access to more housing,
concerns about debt—things that Parliament deals with",
but that for some reason this interest was not connecting with
the act of voting.[93]
We also heard that both younger voters and non-voters "did
not feel that they had enough information or understanding".[94]
Conclusion
39. A number of factors have contributed to low
levels of voter engagement in recent years. The evidence we have
received indicates that the most significant of these is political
disengagement and dissatisfaction with politicians, political
parties and UK politics more broadly. Issues such as the perception
that voting does not make a difference and dissatisfaction with
where power lies in the UK system have also been cited as reasons
for low levels of participation at elections. These are all legitimate
reasons for people to disengage from the electoral process, and
it cannot be said that low turnout levels and registration rates
are the result of apathy on the part of the public. Just as the
exposure of abuse of parliamentary allowances and the subsequent
establishment of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
has purged the expenses scandal, so an equally serious and perhaps
uncomfortable set of reforms are needed to renew democratic participation.
In a consumer society, there is a danger that the enormous demands
placed on democratic institutions to gratify expectations can
lead to short-termism and a lack of substantive engagement. However,
the decline in voter engagement is a result of failures by the
governing political and administrative elite, and responsibility
for initiating the re-engagement of the electorate with existing
and future political processes lies with politicians. We recommend
that political parties come forward with a package of measures
to renew democratic participation which are based squarely upon
those in this Report.
40. There is a strong perception that elections
themselves are hidebound by process, bureaucracy, rules and restrictions
and that the electoral process in the UK needs to be part of rediscovering
a sense of excitement and engagement, to celebrate democratic
values and to cherish the history of extending the vote to both
sexes and all classes. This should not only occur on National
Voter Registration Day but be a part of culture and education.
It must also be supported by reinvigoration of the UK's electoral
administration, and we propose measures to achieve this in the
remainder of this Report. We are conscious that we are placing
a heavy burden on the Electoral Commission and Electoral Registration
Officers both now and for the future. In this context of constant
improvement we also draw attention, for consideration by the public,
to the proposal for a standing Commission for Democracy, akin
to the Electoral Commission, but as a permanent mechanism for
broader democratic reform and renewal which is floated in our
report A new Magna Carta?, currently out for public consultation.
11 Q142 [David Babbs], written evidence from Professor
Matt Flinders [VUK 06], Electoral Reform Society [VUK 17], Mark
Ryan [VUK 31], Andrew Ping [VUK 60], Keith Best [VUK 117] Back
12
Q84 [Dr Ruth Fox] Back
13
Written evidence from the British Academy [VUK 11] Back
14
Q84 [Dr Ruth Fox] Back
15
Q171 [David Babbs] Back
16
Q157 [David Babbs], written evidence from Gillian Pardesi [VUK 04],
Myplace Project [VUK 23], Professor Pete Dorey [VUK 45] Back
17
Q21 [Professor Sarah Birch], Q377 [Nigel Slack], written evidence
from Mr Hugh Eveleigh [VUK 01], 38 Degrees [VUK 50], Andy Tye
[VUK 84], Sheffield for Democracy [VUK 93 and VUK 124], Lodestone
[VUK 101], Unlock Democracy Birmingham [VUK 143] Back
18
Written evidence from Mr Les G Cooper [VUK 07], Gordon J Sheppard
[VUK 57], Philip Combes [VUK 64], Paul D Lee [VUK 70], Arthur
C James [VUK 111], Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform [VUK 152] Back
19
Q164 [David Babbs], Paul D Lee [VUK 70] Back
20
Q184 [Toni Pearce], Professor Pete Dorey [VUK 45], Hansard Society
[VUK 46], David H Smith [VUK 59], Andrew Ping [VUK 60], Paul D
Lee [VUK 70], Peter Roberts [VUK 82], Andy Tye [VUK 84], STV Action
[VUK 114], Keith Best [VUK 117], John E Strafford [VUK 134] Back
21
Q377 [Nigel Slack] Back
22
Q378 [Nigel Slack], written evidence from Andrew Jones [VUK 10],
Unlock Democracy [VUK 18], Mark Ryan [VUK 31], Professor Pete
Dorey [VUK 45], David H Smith [VUK 59], Sheffield for Democracy
[VUK 93], Liam Hardy [VUK 109], STV Action [VUK 114], Ken Davies
[VUK 127], Michael Meadowcroft [VUK 135], Unlock Democracy Birmingham
[VUK 143] Back
23
Q122 [Jessica Garland], Q184 [Toni Pearce], written evidence from
Gillian Pardesi [VUK 04], Andrew Jones [VUK 10], Electoral Reform
Society [VUK 17], Written evidence from Dr Elin Weston and LLB
Advanced Constitutional Law students, King's College London [VUK 33],
Liam Hardy [VUK 109], John E Strafford [VUK 134] Back
24
Annex 2 Back
25
Written evidence from Sheffield for Democracy [VUK 93 and 124] Back
26
Q22 [Professor Sarah Birch] Back
27
Q19 [Glenn Gottfried] Back
28
Written evidence from Dr K Purdam and R Southern [VUK 62], Thomas
G F Gray [VUK 67] Back
29
Annex 1, written evidence from the Electoral Commission [VUK 156] Back
30
Written evidence from Philip Combes [VUK 64] Back
31
Written evidence from Democracy Matters [VUK 112] Back
32
Written evidence from Tom London [VUK 116] Back
33
Q142 [David Babbs] Back
34
Written evidence from Professor Charlie Beckett [VUK 133] Back
35
Q386 [Professor Matt Flinders] Back
36
Q390 [Professor Hendrik Wagenaar] Back
37
Written evidence from Unlock Democracy [VUK 18] Back
38
Written evidence from Cybersalon.org [VUK 29] Back
39
Written evidence from Keith Best [VUK 117], John E Strafford [VUK 134],
Michael Meadowcroft [VUK 135], Unlock Democracy Birmingham [VUK 143],
Dr Nick Anstead and Professor Sonia Livingstone OBE [VUK 149] Back
40
Written evidence from the Electoral Reform Society [VUK 17], Professor
Pete Dorey [VUK 45] Back
41
Written evidence from John E Strafford [VUK 134] Back
42
Written evidence from the Electoral Reform Society [VUK 17] Back
43
Written evidence from the Electoral Reform Society [VUK 17], Andrew
Jones [VUK 10], Sheffield for Democracy [VUK 93], Mike Simpson
[VUK 162] Back
44
Written evidence from Professor Susan Banducci and Associate Professor
Daniel Stevens, University of Exeter [VUK 120] Back
45
Written evidence from John E Strafford [VUK 134] Back
46
Written evidence from Dr Nick Anstead and Professor Sonia Livingstone
[VUK 149] Back
47
Written evidence from Unlock Democracy [VUK 18] Back
48
Written evidence from Tim Knight [VUK 129] Back
49
Written evidence from Andrew Jones [VUK 10], Electoral Reform
Society [VUK 17], Unlock Democracy [VUK 18], Mark Ryan [VUK 31],
Birmingham Success Group [VUK 37], Liam Hardy [VUK 109], Democracy
Matters [VUK 112] Back
50
Written evidence from Unlock Democracy [VUK 18] Back
51
Written evidence from the National Union of Journalists [VUK 137] Back
52
Q88 [Dr Ruth Fox] Back
53
Written evidence from the Birmingham 'Success' Group [VUK 37] Back
54
Written evidence from Professor Charlie Beckett [VUK 133] Back
55
Written evidence from Professor Stephen Fisher [VUK 35] Back
56
Written evidence from the National Union of Journalists [VUK 137] Back
57
Royal Charter for the continuance of the British Broadcasting Corporation,
Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2006 Back
58
An Agreement Between Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the British Broadcasting Corporation,
Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2006 Back
59
Q439 [Sue Inglish] Back
60
Q437 [Ric Bailey] Back
61
BBC News Coverage of the European Union, Independent Panel Report,
BBC, January 2005 Back
62
Q487 [Ric Bailey] Back
63
Written evidence from the National Union of Journalists [VUK 137] Back
64
Written evidence from Democratic Audit [VUK 20] Back
65
Q477 [Ric Bailey] Back
66
Q460 [Sue Inglish] Back
67
Rival parties' anger at TV debate offer to Nigel Farage, BBC News,
13 October 2014 Back
68
Written evidence from Professor Susan Banducci and Dr Daniel Stevens
[VUK 120] Back
69
Q50 [Glenn Gottfried] Back
70
Written evidence from Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council [VUK 49] Back
71
Q513 [Damian Lyon Lowes] Back
72
No vote no voice: Mirror campaign to get 1 million new voters to register,
Daily Mirror, September 2014 Back
73
Written evidence from 38 Degrees [VUK 50], Ian Sheppard [VUK 51],
Michael Yates [VUK 53], David H Smith [VUK 59], Tim Knight [VUK 69],
Paul D Lee [VUK 70], Tim Iverson [VUK 79], Peter Roberts [VUK 82],
Sheffield for Democracy [VUK 93], Dr David Hill [VUK 99], Anthony
Tuffin [VUK 105], Keith Underhill [VUK 113], STV Action [VUK 114],
Make Votes Count in West Sussex [VUK 115], Keith Best [VUK 117],
David Bernard [VUK 144] Back
74
Q156 [David Babbs], Q244 [Dr Toby James], Q377 [Nigel Slack],
written evidence from Dr Elin Weston and LLB Advanced Constitutional
Law students, King's College London [VUK 33], Professor Stephen
D Fisher [VUK 35], Professor Ailsa Henderson [VUK 38], Malcolm
Morrison [VUK 68], Peter Roberts [VUK 82], David Green [VUK 91],
Liam Hardy [VUK 109], Colin Buchanan [VUK 110], Michael Meadowcroft
[VUK 135], Charles Harvey [VUK 138], Unlock Democracy Birmingham
[VUK 143], Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform [VUK 152] Back
75
Written evidence from Democracy Matters [VUK 112] Back
76
For example, We should stay with the first past the post voting system,
Grégoire Webber, and The case for First Past the Post,
Lord Norton of Louth Back
77
Q123 [Will Brett] Back
78
Q171 [David Babbs] Back
79
Written evidence from Dr Stephen Barber [VUK 12] Back
80
Written evidence from Dr Elin Weston and LLB Advanced Constitutional
Law students, King's College London [VUK 33] Back
81
Written evidence from Mr Hugh Eveleigh [VUK 01], Mr Les G Cooper
[VUK 07], Professor Ailsa Henderson [VUK 38], Professor Pete Dorey
[VUK 45], Lionel Judd [VUK 136] Back
82
Written evidence from Mr Hugh Eveleigh [VUK 01] Back
83
Written evidence from David Green [VUK 91] Back
84
Written evidence from the Local Government Association [VUK 70]
Sheffield for Democracy [VUK 93 and VUK 124], Liam Hardy [VUK 109] Back
85
Q34 [Professor Sarah Birch] Back
86
Q377 [Nigel Slack] Back
87
Written evidence from the Local Government Association [VUK 70] Back
88
Written evidence from 4 Freedoms Party (UK EPP)/British Committee
of the European People's Party [VUK 146] Back
89
Written evidence from Survation [VUK 103] Back
90
Q499 [Patrick Brione] Back
91
Written evidence from Lodestone [VUK 101] Back
92
Q509 [Patrick Brione] Back
93
Q494 [Fran O'Leary] Back
94
Q495 [Patrick Brione] Back
| 
