Things to read

<See Alan e-mails> <Note that some of this is based on ChatGPT analyses>

  • The APPG for Fair Elections report that proposes a Commission is “Free But Not Fair: British elections and how to restore trust in politics“, published 25 November 2024. This is the report that Identifies FPTP, “dark money” and disinformation as three core threats. Its Recommendation 1 is to establish a National Commission on Electoral Reform, starting work in 2025, to recommend a “fair and democratic voting system in which every vote counts”, given that there is a “broad consensus that First Past the Post is flawed and damaging trust in politics”. However, “It should be established in 2025 in order to report to Parliament in good time for its recommendations to be progressed within the current parliamentary term”, and the “good time” available reduces daily.
  • Contextual write-ups confirming the “National Commission” proposal:
  • Separately, in September 2025, the APPG published a more technical follow-up document: “National Commission on Electoral Reform: Terms of Reference” – effectively the “ready to go blueprint” for how such a Commission would work: https://www.fairelections.uk/national-commission/.
  • That page also links to a Terms of Reference PDF.

2. Is there a written record of the APPG’s preceding deliberations?

Short answer:
There’s no sign of full, formal minutes or a verbatim record of the APPG’s internal deliberations being published in the way a select committee would publish evidence. What is publicly available is a set of surrounding documents and commentary that give you a decent picture of the process and thinking:

a) Secretariat / background description

Fair Vote UK (which acts as the APPG’s secretariat) explains that the APPG builds on earlier consultation-driven research carried out for the old APPG on Electoral Campaigning Transparency, especially the 2020 report Defending Our Democracy in the Digital Age which took evidence from civil society, industry and government.

That’s not a minute-by-minute record of the new APPG’s discussions, but it is part of the intellectual and evidence base they say they’re standing on.

b) Public launch & commentary around Free But Not Fair

A few sources give you a written “trail” of the thinking that led into / accompanied the report:

c) Deliberations around the later Terms of Reference

For the 2025 Terms of Reference document, there are a few clues about deliberations:

  • The APPG page itself says the ToR were developed “in consultation with leading constitutional experts” with the aim of promoting a national conversation and building consensus.
  • A follow-up post on the same site describes a drop-in session on 15 September where MPs and staff discussed the draft Terms of Reference – but again, there’s no published transcript or detailed minutes, just a short summary.
  • Bath University’s Institute for Policy Research blog and UCL’s Constitution Unit “Monitor 91” briefly describe the APPG’s proposals and confirm there was consultation with academics and constitutional experts, but they don’t reproduce internal deliberations.

So: there’s a clear written trail of what they decided and why, through:

  • the Free But Not Fair report itself;
  • launch / commentary pieces;
  • Hansard references;
  • and the later National Commission Terms of Reference.

Jenkins

Other