Political reform mustn’t be left to politicians

Thomas

It all sounds a lot like Douglas Carswell and Dan Hannan's 'Plan',

Frances

Fraser, how predictable of you to airily dismiss the concept of PR - supported, polls show, by a sweeping majority of the electorate - as serving the interests of 'politicians not the people'. Let's see - you don't want the votes of the public to be directly reflected in the composition of parliament because the outcome wouldn't be to your taste. I think you ought to reflect on whose interests you're really defending on that score.

And the idea that PR would institutionalise Labour/Lib Dem hegemony is a paranoid fantasy in any case. Even if the Lib Dems always sided with Labour (they wouldn't) a far more likely scenario is that the Greens and UKIP would come into their own, making it much harder for the two main 'centre-left' parties to gain an outright majority between them.

I wasn't aware the Isle of Man had experimented with PR, but do you really want me to list the countless number of countries and territories (including Westminster-inspired democracies such as New Zealand) that adopted PR and held on to it because it did work?

Brian Powell

They will never willingly give p the closed shop that they run. The only thing we can do is keep a careful watch on what they do and shout about what is wrong. We can make them look the small minded idiots they are until decency wins through.

paulgilboy

well no one asked me, but I support the bill of rights And, referenda as a bit of demagogue makes politics interesting.

Richard Lung

I agree with the general drift of these proposals, which I take to mean that people would like the sectionally-supported main parties to allow Parliament to do its public job with free debate to decide the best courses of action.

The two most important reforms to the two chambers of Parliament are neglected as usual, which is why I have specialised in promoting them.

Namely, elections that elect: the Labour party's Plant commission excluded STV precisely because they opposed the intra-party competition
STV/PR allows Irish elections. Until the MPS are representative of the people, rather than the parties, you won't have truly representative government in the general interest.

Likewise, experts shouldnt be appendages of political committees but representative in their own right of the specialised knowledge of the nation, to independently check dogmatic laws from the first chamber.
This is the role of the Lords. As with electoral reform, it is the politicians who get in the way of this means to effective government, because they want the Lords as their political colony.

Snowman

Frances got it just right. The current FPTP system makes a massive chunk of the electorate impotent, without a voice. Look, just 23% of the registered electorate gave Labour a huge majority to mess up. The goal of an electoral system must be for the House to reflect the views of the country, not to make the Government strong. If the strength of Government were the aim then dictatorship would be the number one choice. If we keep the FPTP system it's what we are going to get. And soon.

Dwight Vandryver

Surely any talk of reform is meaningless until the UK's relationship with the EU has been resolved?
Labour wants the UK to fully integrate with the EU - presumably, with the aim of forming a pan-european state. The Tories want influence in the EU, but not a federal Europe (howsoever that differs in practice). Party "differentiators" like this are humbug to most people who see the enormous cost of membership buying negative rewards, coupled with a slow but sure loss of sovereignty.
A simple referendum should be put to the British people: "EU - In or Out". Once this question has been answered, then would be the time to consider some proposals for reform.

Martin C

My recommendation is: take the content of the American Declaration of Independence, replace the phrase "We the people of the United States..." with "We the people of the United Kingdoms..." and enshrine it in law.

Derek Rowntree

Fraser suggests that the "next Tory government . . . need look no further" than the proposals suggested by Spectator readers and ranked by 1,110 members of the general public. Oh yes it does. We cannot assume that the views of Spectator readers (mine included), even when put in order of priority by members of the general public, will reflect those of the electorate at large. In fact, Fraser's suggested approach echoes one of the shortcomings of the present system, whereby we don't get to choose amongst all the candidates who might offer themselves as our MP but only amongst those who have been pre-selected by people whose political priorities may be quite different from our own.) What the next government really needs to do is consult the whole electorate -- perhaps as the first of a series of referenda that many of us are asking for.

naomi muse

OK, so now we have the will of the people ant it is neat and clear. How do you suggest, Fraser, that we get the ear of the politicians and then their political will?

J A Roberts

New Zealand tried a consitutional reform which was "governed" largely by parliament. I would suggest, if the UK wants to undertake consitutional reform, that an appropriate assembly be consituted, whether by election or appointment by a non-political body. The obviousl choice of such an appointing person is the Queen without the advice of hie minsters, but with that of disinterested persons. NZ has walked blindly down the path of proportional reprsntation and now finds half the members of the parliament are irremoveable as are members in safe seats. Avoid it like he plague it is. Keep the second house, elected, and givie it equal powers to the other house - negotiation will often bring better legislation and sounder budgets. Good luck!

chart70

I missed the chance to contribute to the consultation, but would have supported what David Starkey said on This Week a while ago that the time is ripe to adopt the central concept of the US founding fathers of Separation of Powers: the PM should be directly elected, ministers should not be drawn from Parliament but should be called to account by the legislature, through confirmation hearings, select committees, etc. Other suggestions made here like reducing the number of MPs would follow - no more than 200 well-staffed MPs would be needed to scrutinise legislation, and their 'pastoral' role could be undertaken by staff appointed to their offices, or indeed interns as in Congress.

b j thomson

I shant vote again until voters are given the right to initiate referendums at a local and national level - only then can we hold those who govern us truly accountable and only then will they try to serve the people who elect them