Local elections are routinely heralded for their broader political significance, though they are often a poor predictor of general elections. Next month’s English council contests will be pored over by pundits seeking to divine the next prime minister in the entrails of the electoral data. The future will be seen in the portents from Swindon. Yet the most consequential analysis will not emerge for several weeks, till the publication of a report on whether contentious Tory reforms to electoral laws have stopped people from voting.
The change causing concern is the new requirement that voters offer photo ID before they can vote in person. May’s elections are the first major test of its impact. Given Boris Johnson’s record of contempt for constitutional conventions and the reluctance of parties to legislate to damage their interests, such worries are not entirely irrational.
Cynicism is deepened by the fact that voter impersonation is not a major problem. The recorded incidence is piffling, with convictions and cautions since 2014 in single figures each year. Critics describe the voter ID rules as “a solution in search of a problem”. A former Tory cabinet minister says it could “potentially disenfranchise thousands”. A cross-party Commons inquiry warned the move risked “making it more difficult to vote”.
The Tory desire for voter ID predates Johnson’s legislation and was recommended by the Electoral Commission, the body that supervises UK polls. It is already the practice in Northern Ireland, though turnout dropped by 2.3 per cent when it was first introduced.
Done properly, there is no particularly strong argument against voter ID beyond there being no obvious need either. It is the norm in Canada, France, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Greece and the Netherlands.
But the way Johnson drove through the change did little to dispel doubts, especially among those who saw parallels with voter suppression techniques of Republican populists in US.
Ministers rejected advice from the Electoral Commission that this May was too soon. More troubling is that the government’s list of acceptable ID, beyond the obvious passport and driving licence, seems strikingly skewed against younger voters, who are less likely to vote Conservative. An over-60 Oyster travel card is valid; an over-18 one is not. When peers, led by a former Tory minister, voted to broaden the list of accepted IDs, the government overturned the move.
Another problem is the lack of reliable data. The government puts the number of voters without accepted ID as low as 925,000. The Electoral Reform Society believes it is nearer 2mn. A free government ID is available to those lacking the accepted proofs of identity, but so far around 55,000 have applied. Beyond this is the question of people who forget to bring proof when they vote. One estimate suggests 20 per cent of the public do not routinely carry photo ID.
The commission says the groups most at risk of disenfranchisement include certain minority communities, those in rented accommodation and the over-85s. Only the last group, which leans heavily conservative, will worry ministers. To further complicate matters, the change does not apply to most polls in Scotland and Wales, aside from general elections.
The first analysis on the impact will come in an interim Electoral Commission report in June, with a fuller study in September. It will focus on how many voters were turned away and also how many failed to return. A government survey is also due but critics worry it will focus unduly on headline turnout figures, though these vary from year to year.
One might argue that the change will bed-in soon enough, but for doubts over the fairness of its implementation and the failure to act in a cross-party way. And this is not the only reform. The Tories have also legislated to weaken the independence of the Electoral Commission and to change the voting system for directly elected mayors.
The electoral system for mayors, under which voters were allowed to designate a second preference if their first choice was eliminated, had previously enjoyed cross-party support.
Yet, again without compelling reason for change, the system is being scrapped in favour of the first-past-the-post model used for general elections. This disadvantages smaller parties and helps Conservatives as the left and liberal vote is split. The official reason for this change is simplification and familiarity with a trusted system. The real motive is a self-interested desire to push back the cause of electoral reform.
All electoral changes come with inevitable allegations of gerrymandering. Introduced properly, voter ID need not be a problem. Fears may yet prove overblown. Advance publicity could reduce the risks. But the way this has been done does not build confidence.
So the response to the reports on the May elections is a fundamental test of Rishi Sunak’s pledge to restore integrity to government. Where the analysis highlights problems they should not be brushed aside. He cannot simply cover his eyes and see no evil.
If he wants to be seen as more upstanding than Johnson, the man he has defined himself against, Sunak must not be cavalier and partisan in response to a matter of essential democratic integrity. For once, the cliché is correct. These are truly significant elections.