The real reasons for there being a deposit requirement in UK Parliamentary elections
For some time now, I have been doing research of by-elections and general elections of the past in my spare time.
I have also noticed how the deposit system, which the UK Electoral Commission says is to 'ensure only serious candidates stand for election' (and thus deter timewasters of the likes of the late Bill Boaks and the still living David Bishop) is not effective at deterring frivolous candidates at all.
In the 1984 Chesterfield by-election, which was won by Tony Benn after he had lost his seat of Bristol South East in 1983, when the deposit required to stand in a Westminster election was just £150 (the percentage of votes needed to have it returned,though, was 12.5%), 17 candidates stood, 14 of them losing their deposit. Only 6 of them in fact even got more than 100 votes apiece.
Partly because of this, and the fact that Margaret Thatcher faced 10 opponents in her seat of Finchley alone in 1983 (half got fewer than 100 votes apiece, and the Ecology (now Green) Party's Simone Wilkinson was the only non-major candidate there to beat the late,great Screaming Lord Sutch), the deposit required to stand in Parliamentary elections was raised to £500 in 1985, although as a concession the threshold to retain it was lowered to 5%.
Since 1985, there have been 36 by-elections featuring 10 candidates or more; many of the candidates who have stood could be described as frivolous or semi-frivolous (as their cause had no real long-term prospect of gaining major support). By contrast, there have only been 6 by-elections from 1977-1984 with 10 or more candidates in each of them (there were no UK by-elections before 1977 featuring 10 candidates or more). In this Parliament alone, there have been 6 by-elections with 10 or more candidates, out of 14 held in Britain so far in this Parliament.
Thus, deposits are not effective at deterring timewasters from elections or by-elections.
What the £500 deposit requirement actually does, is stifle the growth of minor but serious parties (we Greens have tried to do our best against this problem,as have others) ,discriminate against independent candidates with a serious intention (especially those who have disabilities), and makes it difficult for people on average incomes to stand for election and give voters a real alternative to the 3 major parties of Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative. Even those major parties have lost deposits in some by-elections due to tactical voting; Labour lost their deposits in both the Newbury and Christchurch by-elections of 1993, in all likelihood because of tactical voting to defeat the Conservative candidates there.
I thus believe that the system of deposits should be scrapped and instead replaced with a requirement, as exists in several European countries, to gain more signatures from voters in a region before they can stand; this in my opinion is a better way of deterring timewasters-the only joke/frivolous party that was able to gain the right to stand widely in the 2013 German elections (and not in all states either) was Die PARTEI, Germany's answer to Britain's Monster Raving Loony Party.
Also, the first past the post system should be scrapped (and replaced with STV or open-list PR) as well as the deposit requirement. The public needs a fair chance across Britain to choose from alternatives to the mainstream.
Regards,
Alan.
I have also noticed how the deposit system, which the UK Electoral Commission says is to 'ensure only serious candidates stand for election' (and thus deter timewasters of the likes of the late Bill Boaks and the still living David Bishop) is not effective at deterring frivolous candidates at all.
In the 1984 Chesterfield by-election, which was won by Tony Benn after he had lost his seat of Bristol South East in 1983, when the deposit required to stand in a Westminster election was just £150 (the percentage of votes needed to have it returned,though, was 12.5%), 17 candidates stood, 14 of them losing their deposit. Only 6 of them in fact even got more than 100 votes apiece.
Partly because of this, and the fact that Margaret Thatcher faced 10 opponents in her seat of Finchley alone in 1983 (half got fewer than 100 votes apiece, and the Ecology (now Green) Party's Simone Wilkinson was the only non-major candidate there to beat the late,great Screaming Lord Sutch), the deposit required to stand in Parliamentary elections was raised to £500 in 1985, although as a concession the threshold to retain it was lowered to 5%.
Since 1985, there have been 36 by-elections featuring 10 candidates or more; many of the candidates who have stood could be described as frivolous or semi-frivolous (as their cause had no real long-term prospect of gaining major support). By contrast, there have only been 6 by-elections from 1977-1984 with 10 or more candidates in each of them (there were no UK by-elections before 1977 featuring 10 candidates or more). In this Parliament alone, there have been 6 by-elections with 10 or more candidates, out of 14 held in Britain so far in this Parliament.
Thus, deposits are not effective at deterring timewasters from elections or by-elections.
What the £500 deposit requirement actually does, is stifle the growth of minor but serious parties (we Greens have tried to do our best against this problem,as have others) ,discriminate against independent candidates with a serious intention (especially those who have disabilities), and makes it difficult for people on average incomes to stand for election and give voters a real alternative to the 3 major parties of Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative. Even those major parties have lost deposits in some by-elections due to tactical voting; Labour lost their deposits in both the Newbury and Christchurch by-elections of 1993, in all likelihood because of tactical voting to defeat the Conservative candidates there.
I thus believe that the system of deposits should be scrapped and instead replaced with a requirement, as exists in several European countries, to gain more signatures from voters in a region before they can stand; this in my opinion is a better way of deterring timewasters-the only joke/frivolous party that was able to gain the right to stand widely in the 2013 German elections (and not in all states either) was Die PARTEI, Germany's answer to Britain's Monster Raving Loony Party.
Also, the first past the post system should be scrapped (and replaced with STV or open-list PR) as well as the deposit requirement. The public needs a fair chance across Britain to choose from alternatives to the mainstream.
Regards,
Alan.
Comments
Post a Comment