« Parliamentary support swells | Main | The Make Votes Count Essay Competition »
June 03, 2005
Greg Dyke sounds off in style
Greg Dyke doesn’t much like the government. He takes particular issue with Tony, and his unaccountableness, especially over Iraq.
With this in mind, you can probably guess what two-thirds of his piece in the Indy today is about. However, it’s a lovely little rant, and there’s nout wrong with them.
Also, he links the de facto dictatorship to the electoral system in a manner so casual you’d think everyone knew it by now.
Edited highlights:
What Mrs Thatcher and later, and to much greater effect, Tony Blair have both demonstrated is that a powerful - some would say ruthless - leader with a big majority in the Commons is largely unaccountable in our political system.
Lord Butler… summed up the failure of cabinet government in a recent interview with The Spectator: "The Cabinet now, and I don't think there is any secret about this, doesn't make decisions ... What happens now is that the Government reaches conclusions in rather small groups of people, and there is insufficient opportunity for other people to debate, dissent and modify."
In the same interview, Lord Butler also pointed up the second major failing of democracy in the time of the Blair government - the failure of the legislature to hold the executive in check. Any interest group or lobbyist trying to change a bad Bill knows only too well that their best chances are in the unelected House of Lords, where the Government whips are less effective and debate is more intelligent, rather than in the Commons where, in the last parliament, some terrible legislation was passed on the nod, pushed through by the whips.
And of course we will need proportional representation, if for no other reason than to assure every voter that their vote does matter.
Jack Straw would have a fit. It’s not unaccountable, it’s strong, quoth Jack. Whatever. Dyke makes a good point about the Lords being much more fit for government than parliament. They are, quite simply, although even that is being perverted by electing more and more party mouthpieces into the Upper House.
One or the other needs to reflect the public opinion, whatever that may be, given that FPTP distorts not only parliamentary power, but the way people feel obliged to vote.
I thought there’d be a lot more to say about Dyke’s piece, but it’s fairly comprehensive, and he doesn’t need me merely repeating and praising, so go read it in full, and have a nice day…
Posted by pauldavies on June 03, 2005

