« The safer the seat, the more likely the MP is to be involved in the expenses scandal | Main | Strong support from The Independent »
May 20, 2009
Politicians and political commentators call for radical reform
The MPs:
It's essential to the democratic process that we restore faith in elected representatives. I believe that we need to overhaul the political system and that we should complete unfinished business by discussing again the Jenkins review and consulting the British people on proportional representation, which gives greater power to the electorate.
Douglas Carswell MP (Conservative)
Ultimately, change must mean addressing the fact that most MPs never have to face a genuinely competitive democratic election. Safe seats mean many MPs come from one-party fiefdoms. This means most voters are denied real choice over who gets to be their MP. If there was only one restaurant or supermarket in the town where you lived, you would probably be overcharged and find the service less responsive. Why do we run our political system like that? Reform must mean either open primary selections for sitting MPs, or multi-member constituencies. Or preferably both. It is time for the party that believes in competition and choice in business and commerce to apply those principles to politics
Nick Clegg MP (Liberal Democrats)
Finally, but fundamentally, we need to give people a proper say in who governs the country with fair votes. No government should be able to secure total power with the support of just one out of every five people. ... [Labour and the Conservatives] have a vested interest in the status quo because eventually the electoral merry-go-round will deliver them power. Why break open a cosy arrangement which has served the establishment parties so well over the years? But we can no longer tolerate such a dysfunctional set-up. We must finally haul our politics from the 19th century into the 21st. After more than a week of scandal, one thing is clearer than ever: the game is up for the old way of doing things. The question now is – do we have the will to start anew?
The Guardian
For years, those of us who yearned for a radical shakeup of our ¬constitution were told we could dream on. Save it for the seminar room, the critics said: what people care about are jobs and services, not dry, academic discussions about governance. You may well be right on the merits of the arguments, the ¬opponents conceded. But it's not what agitates the punters in the Dog and Duck. That's always going to be your problem, mate: no one cares. Well, guess what. They care now.
There is [currently] no place for dissenting views in mainstream politics. I was told recently by a Labour backbencher – a respected MP untainted by the expenses scandal – that "if the door was open just an inch to new ideas, I would stay on. But it has been slammed shut, so I'm resigning at the next election." Our grossly unfair electoral system, which responds to the concerns of just a few thousand floating voters and shuts out the minor parties ..... – all combine to create a political culture which cannot respond to altered realities without collapsing. What cannot be accommodated must be suppressed.
The temptation for the parties will be to sack a few people and redesign the allowance system but if public trust is to be restored there has to be a much more radical rethink. There has to be root-and-branch reform of parliament, both the Lords and the Commons, a written constitution, proportional representation, proper funding of political parties, a real curb on commercial lobbying, extended powers for select committees and fewer powers for the whips, a proper pay structure for MPs, more participative democracy and a re-ignition of local government to create new avenues for people to enter the world of politics.
“A formidable array of reformers is gathering to demand a referendum on the principle of PR be added to the ballot paper at the next election. Let the people decide if they want to blow fresh air into parliament.”
Patrick Wintour
Organisations as diverse as the left-leaning thinktank the IPPR, Unlock Democracy, the Electoral Reform Society, Open Democracy, Compass and Progress are all talking of a radical reform of politics, including some kind of people's convention. It appears Brown has now embraced this proposal.
The Independent
We are being presented with a unique opportunity to radically alter the composition of the House of Commons, and break the white, male, middle-class and middle-aged bias. But how? Opinion polls show that the three main parties are losing their appeal to voters, and until we chuck out our first-past-the-post system, small parties and independents don't stand much of a chance. Proportional representation is the only fair solution to the current disenchantment with party politics, but will the Commons be brave enough to seize the opportunity?
Voters want prosecution, de-selection, dismissal, defeat and defenestration. But they also want rejuvenation - a new Speaker, a new Parliament - and a new electoral system based on open democracy. And if constitutional reform is the voters' clarion cry - including electoral reform - then MPs should consider candidates [for Speaker] regardless of party labels and regardless of the previous convention that "it's our party's turn".
What was fascinating about [Alan] Johnson's answers when readers of this newspaper asked him questions on Monday was that he advocated proportional representation: it made him look pluralist, humble and reformist. I don't agree with strict proportionality, but I think it right to honour Labour's 1997 pledge to let the people decide.
Other Newspapers
Electoral reform, fixed elections every four years, shutting the House of Cronies and, perhaps, US-style limits on Downing Street tenancies need to be on the agenda. Because unless faith is restored in politicians and politics, Brown’s wasting his time drawing dividing lines over policies with the Tories.
Influential Bloggers
Matthew Taylor (Head of the Royal Society of the Arts)
Labour needs big ideas. Here’s one: why not pledge to hold a referendum on electoral reform on the date of the next general election. Here’s why:1. It makes good on one of Labour’s big undelivered promises from the 1997 election.
2. It is a scandal that a Party can gain total control of the Executive on fewer than 40% of the votes.
3. Minority administrations elected through more proportionate electoral systems in Scotland and Wales may not be without flaws but they are governing perfectly adequately.
4. As Carswell says, a multi member system could be presented as a way of making MPs more personally accountable.
5. And (forgive me being political) it would be a tough call for Mr Cameron. Most Tories oppose electoral reform but how could they justify ignoring a national referendum?
Posted by malcolmclark on May 20, 2009
Comments
As Lenin was quoted as saying: "...there are decades in which nothing happens - and weekends where entire decades happen..."
Even in constitutionally decrepit, past-it old Britain!
Posted by: Nigel Baldwin at May 20, 2009 10:10 AM
Regarding the proposed referendum at the same time as the election I would draw attention once again to two paragraphs in the 2003 icpr report . Here they are:-
"(In general) our survey work shows that people think very little about electoral systems. Hence there is a significant degree of support for first-past-the-post, which reduces only when the deficiencies of the system are pointed out
Focus groups convened to test people’s reaction to different systems suggested that many citizens were unaware of any defects in first-past-the-post until they were pointed out. The attitude of surveyed respondents tended to change dramatically when they found out more about the operation of first-past the-post. Most were converted to some form of PR."
And here is what Jenkins said in his report:-
"the Comission recommends that there should be a PROPERLY PLANNED publicly funded but neutrally conducted EDUCATION PROGRAMME to prepare voters for the decision they will be required to make in the referendum"
Unless there is such a programme BEFORE the election, a programme which reaches every household in the UK, we could more than likely get the wrong decision which would be a disaster for obvious reasons.
On the subject of commentators calling for radical reform: the one organisation which should be at the forefront in making public such calls is the BBC which never ever mentions the need for electoral reform. Below is a copy of an e-mail I today sent to James Naughtie of the flagship news programme Today. In my view subscribers to MVC should bombard the BBC - preferably the DG - with protests at the apparently deliberate refusal to discuss this fundamentally important subject.
Here is the content of my e-mail:-
"Dear Mr Naughtie,
I heard your discussion with Alan Duncan this morning. There was of course the ususal reference to the need for a general election and other matters arising out of the recent scandals.
However, there was as is ususal in the BBC, absolutely no mention of reforming the electoral system. Having a general election will in itself not make any fundamental change to parliament since the parliament elected under first-past-the-post FPTP is NEVER representative of what the electorate has voted for. At present we have a government with a majority of 65 seats yet it has the suppport of no more than one in five of the electorate. Moreover, FPTP has evolved into a system where we always have one of two parties in a majority in parliament and new ideas and new faces are shut out.
There is at present wide recognitition that this state of affairs must change if we are to have true democracy. WHY is this never mentioned on the BBC, of all organisations, with its remit to EDUCATE INFORM and entertain. I have heard suspicion expressed that the BBC has been "got at" by the present government who so cynically reneged on their electoral reform commitments in the 1997 manfesto.
You as a scotsman will be well aware of the representative system in Scotland. It is not the most desirable system but it is infinitely better than FPTP (the most acceptable system is the Single Transferable Vote). So it is a mystery why it never seems to occur to you that there is something gravely wrong with the way we are represented - or rather NOT represented - in the main legislature in the UK
Can we hope for the flagship news programme Today to play its part in introducing true democracy into Westminster.
Yours sincerely
Joe Patterson"
Posted by: Joe Patterson at May 20, 2009 11:27 AM
Hello
If everyone went to the polling station but wrote 'NON of the ABOVE' across the ballot paper then the message would soon get accross. The 'spoiled' ballot papers have to be counted and in some instances NON of the ABOVE could have the most ballot papers which surely must concentrate a few minds.
By spoiling your vote rather than saying sod it and not voting you are sending a clear message because each party tries to second guess why you never voted. They wouldn't need to guess what the 'Non voters' were thinking it would be obvious!!
Posted by: PeterHA at May 20, 2009 01:12 PM
Proportional representation could be introduced overnight if we changed the value of each MP's vote in the House to reflect his (her) party's percentage of the popular vote. Think about it.
Posted by: Simon Bevan at May 20, 2009 01:58 PM
The expenses scandal has aroused media and public ire . Although any old PR system could eliminate "electoral deserts" and produce Governments supported by the majority of voters, only STV could give voters a choice between the very corrupt, the slightly corrupt and the squeaky clean.
Posted by: Anthony Tuffin at May 20, 2009 11:53 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.
