The modern Tory hero should be Jefferson

Ray

"Britain cannot approach Jeffersonian democracy as long as it is subject to the will of an unaccountable apparat. We cannot decentralise power within the UK while centralising it in the EU. We cannot take decisions more closely to the people if they are being taken in Brussels."

Amen! I can't add anything more to that most pertinent of observations about why the outlook for democracy in Britain today in so dismal than to ask Cameron and the Conservative Party to take note.

Dean Glover

Any american who graduated from highschool can tell you how the President gets elected. In Europe even intelligent people have no idea how Barosso became president. If you don't like Commissioner Mandelson then tough, because you can't vote him out. The EU doesn't even faintly resemble a democracy

David

Allowing the morons in local authorities yet more powers to ruin our lives, no thank you.

Doing away with the few safeguards that protect citizens against government power, i.e. the ECHR, again no thank you.

Becoming the USA, ditto as above.

Messrs Hannan and Caswell must really dislike the UK to come up with a list of bone-headed ideas which would put this country on a direct road to rack and ruin.

If another state's parliamentary system is to be held up as an example, it is that of Germany with their elected Lander which deal with local issues and also represent the region in the State Parliament.

The problem with the UK Parliament is not that powers have given away (as any constitutional lawyer will tell you, one Parliament cannot bind another), but rather the micro-management which prevents the real issues being dealt with.

EUSSR GO HOME

euSSR GO HOME...Now there's an idea after my own heart.

And, yes, the diaspora effect does show in the US, linguistically as well. However, I don't believe in electing some officials: judges, for example.

Personally - I always thought Britain was the best anywhere on earth could be. [That was before the foreigners made it worse that their places]. So why can't we get back to our own ways? Education, media, culture, and political structure?
And then we can require that foreigners either keep our laws, or leave.

David Lindsay

Yes, open primaries.

In the course of each Parliament, each party should submit a shortlist of the two candidates nominated by the most branches (including those of affiliated organisations where applicable) to a binding ballot of the whole electorate at constituency level for the Prospective Parliamentary Candidate, and at national level for the Leader.

All the ballots for Prospective Parliamentary Candidate should be held on the same day, and all the ballots for Leader should be held on the same day. Each of these ballots should be held at public expense at the request of five per cent or more of registered voters in the constituency or the country, as appropriate.

Each candidate in each of these ballots should have a tax-free campaigning allowance out of public funds, conditional upon matching funding by resolution of a membership organisation. The name of that organisation should appear on the ballot paper after that of the candidate. There should be a ban on all other campaign funding, and on all campaign spending above twice that allowance.

Likewise, in the course of each Parliament, each party should submit to a binding ballot of the whole electorate the ten policies proposed by the most branches (including those of affiliated organisations where applicable), with voters entitled to vote for up to two, and with the highest-scoring seven guaranteed inclusion in the next General Election Manifesto. All of those ballots should be held on the same day, and each of them should be held at public expense at the request of five per cent or more of registered voters in the country.

The official campaign for each policy should have a tax-free campaign allowance, conditional upon matching funding by resolution of a membership organisation. The name of that organisation should appear on the ballot paper after that of the policy. And there should be a ban on all other campaign funding, and on all campaign spending above twice that allowance.

I don't know which party Hannan and Carswell think dismantled local government, though.

Roger Inkpen

I’m not sure if it came from Anthony King, but over the last two general elections I’ve heard the figure of 100,000 given of those who actually have a genuine say in the election of their MP, and by extension, determining the government. Essentially these are the floating voters in the most marginal constituencies. Floating voters elsewhere may be of interest to Peter Snow, but the parties quite rightly ignore them as, say, 2,000 voters moving from Labour to Tory in Jack Straw’s constituency will have no effect. Yet it will take many fewer to change their preference in Jacqui Smith’s seat to send her to the scrap heap.

Thus, as the authors tell us, the vast majority of MPs are pretty safe in their seats, however much the nation gets to revile Gordon over the next 18 months. Until there is a genuine chance for most voters to make a difference to the party in power, they will continue to switch off, never mind how many referendums or votes for local police chief you give them. I realise there are some complicated forms of PR but none comes near Mr Lindsay’s primary voting. STV’s my preference.

I certainly agree with much of the tenet of the authors, and as they say, power should be devolved to the lowest practicable level. All parties claim this is their intention, yet on the evidence of the last 20-30 years both Conservatives and Labour have shown no interest in a genuine devolution of power. They may have the freedom to scrap bridge tolls or NHS parking charges, but even the Scottish and Welsh executives still rely on block grants from Westminster, and local councils have control of less than a quarter of their budgets.

This is the element missing from any Labour or Tory policies. The LibDems have always been stronger on devolution, their solution to funding being local income taxes and devolved business rates. Of course they also want regional government (the closest we’d get to US state size), perhaps not as independent as the German Laender, but with sufficient power to set taxes and spending, recognising the huge differences in the economies and costs of living of, say, the Northeast and Southeast of England (why should council workers in Brighton and Barnsley earn the same?) If they are calling for localised sales taxes, I would agree, but at a manageable regional level (as they do in each state in the US).

Mark Solomon

If the US system is the closest and therefore the most responsive to the people,then why do less than 35% vote? How come even the President can be elected with less than half the voting age population voting? Most European countries with their statist constitutions have higher voter participation than the UK or USA. Gerry-mandering of consituencies in the USA also ensures that even fewer seats than in Britain are competitive and the Presidential election is decided in 5 at most 10 states, the larger ones are almost all entirely predictable. And any plan that places more power in the hands of local government has to be prepared for a vast increase in corruption, which is an inevitable consequence, not just of the calibre of people involved but the lack of oversight. This sounds like just another coverstory to push what really interests the authors - withdrawal from the EU. So no workable solutions on offer.

The German system really is probably the best one there is - but then that should be no surprise as it was designed by the Americans in the light of modern experience. There are good bits from most systems - why can't we decide to implement every one else's good bits? So American primaries, French 2 rounds, Spanish variable federalism, German 5% bar and mix of geographical and party list system.....