« More hints from Brown on AV | Main | MVC in Lancashire AGM - 9 June »

May 23, 2007

Report on Progress ‘100 days’ Seminar on Constitutional Reform

Here is a summary of the relevant statements and comments made by the speakers at Tuesday night's Progress seminar.

Joyce Quin

public needs sense of ownership of the second chamber and elections to it must reflect that. Inadequacy of geographic representation within current House of Lords.

Chris Leslie

constitution is an eco-system; you can’t disaggregate and deal with just one element. To decrease cynicism and promote the progressive discourse of community and making decision together, we need to reconnect public with decision-making, hold to account decision-makers and ensure people feel they have influence. Need to reconnect strands of our constitution and design more sophisticated systems that reflect the networks and complexity of modern society and which truly reflect the many not the few. Both of our chambers need to be more representative. People should not see reform as just deck-chairs changing in a remote institution, but about regaining a sense of control of the decisions that affect them.

Billy Bragg

A “constitutional reform hobbyist”. Strengthening of Human Rights Act and applying them to post 9/11 situation through creating a written bill of rights which has the involvement and consent of the people.

Jack Straw

Worth reflecting on achievements of last 10 years and how Labour implemented its manifesto promises [except on electoral reform]. Rising perception gap between politicians and the electorate – a phenomenon common to most developed countries  the politics of contentment. PR is not a panacea, as even in Scandinavia they are suffering the same problems.Need increased democratic control of local police and healthcare bodies. Will bring in a number of measures within one constitutional reform bill; but not Lords reform as too big an issue.

Responses to audience questions on electoral reform:

Chris Leslie:

Constituency link with individual MP necessary, as need proper geographic representation rather than London-centric potential of list members not rooted in constituencies. Not necessarily opposed to AV. But no longer PR supporter, as had been in youth. Scotland should have had two separate elections, rather than both on same day, as systems were too complex.

Billy:

FPTP for Commons and PR for Lords; achieved via the secondary mandate – so only one election / vote needed. In favour of closed lists for Lords – to differentiate mandate from direct Commons one – provided public scrutiny of lists prior to election and One-Member-One-Vote within parties for list selection. Not just about system, but about how we engage with people. Wants everybody’s vote to count and an end to wasted votes.

Joyce:

Still a supporter of PR, but not a priority within first 100 days of Brown premiership.Importance of local link, and didn’t want to sacrifice that for pure / list PR. For Lords reform: the specifics should be covered by a manifesto commitment but before then need to make the arguments and prepare the public.

Jack:

Against PR for Commons; though not against it in some other circumstances – e.g MEPs. Profound feeling that Commons is a “house of communities”, representing specific geographic communities / constituencies, and not wanting to lose that. AV might be a possibility; he is not against it and it does in fact produce clearer and more legitimate results. Would need a referendum to agree any change in the voting system. A closed list system is not appropriate for the Lords: it may be an open or partial list, or it may be none of those. Either way, the aim will be not to create a competitor for the Commons. On Lords reform: do keep up the pressure. We will publish draft elements of a Bill but then seek all parties to put it within their manifesto commitments. On Jenkins Commission: a two-tier Commons is objectionable. Furthermore a decision can only be made by referendum - whatever system put forward must already have significant support.

Posted by malcolmclark on May 23, 2007

Comments

Posted by: Harlan Leyside at May 28, 2007 05:30 PM

We're democrats and believe in free speech, but we're also committed to civil and rational debate. We reserve the right to delete material posted to our site, but we hope and expect to exercise this right rarely if at all.