Politics

Wednesday, 3rd June 2009

Fraser Nelson reviews the week in politics

If the public were truly let in on the debate, they would have plenty to say. Our elections may be characterised by a decline in voting, but interest in politics is soaring. Abstention is not to be confused with apathy. BBC1’s Question Time recently drew 3.8 million viewers, the highest rating in the programme’s history. There has never been a better time to engage the public in a debate about what they would like the new Westminster to look like — and it is a debate which The Spectator is, with the help of PoliticsHome, poised to enter. Our leading article (page 5) sets out some of the core arguments. We are now inviting readers to submit their own suggestions for democratic renewal. In due course, we will subject these ideas to mass consultation, the results of which should provide the most informative portrait yet of the contours of public opinion on this matter.

A excellent starting point is The Plan, a book by two young Tory radicals — Daniel Hannan and Douglas Carswell — about constitutional reform. This print-to-order book is fast becoming a word-of-mouth success. Its premise — that the political process invites contempt and that radical reform is urgently needed — struck some as extreme or quixotic when it was published a year ago. Not so now. The book’s proposals for rewiring the system are being actively considered (and, increasingly, adopted) by Mr Cameron.

The authors of The Plan kick-started several debates which grow in relevance and urgency by the day. For example, should voters be able to recall their MPs as Californians were able to recall their governor in 2003? Mr Cameron (and Nick Clegg) believe so. Other options include forcing all MPs to face reselection battles every four years — a reform that could end the modern-day rotten borough system, with lazy MPs being ousted, and a readier supply of fresh blood ensured.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next page

More articles from: Fraser Nelson | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (4)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Dr.Axel Ridder

June 4th, 2009 5:17pm Report this comment

Primeminister Brown, who did a good job in the financial crisis,should now take the lead in electoral reform.2008 in the average you only had 18,3% women in parliaments worldwide: Uk 19,5%. Now is the time for a brave move in order to make history.
It would set an example for US, UK, Thailand, Germany, Indonesia and The Netherlands. Go to the following webpages: German and English: http://www.2009-de.com ; English only: http://www.squidoo.com/2009demokraten and http://hubpages.com/hub/Real-changes-in-democracy; http://twitter.com/democrats2009
Three-persons-constituency with relative majority voting: Each party puts up two candidates: a woman and a man. One party wins two seats: a woman and a man. The second strongest party gets one seat only: a woman OR a man. Two thirds of parliamentarian seats are mathematically guaranteed for women, with a tendency to 50%. This election system is a triumph of evolution of mankind because it has an inherent tendency to reason.As this election system reduces strongholds, a majority in a constituency and in parliament becomes very narrow. The fear to loose power will bring an inherent tendency to reason and responsibility.Read first before you judge this statement.

Richard Lung

June 4th, 2009 7:48pm Report this comment

There is not much hope for democracy until politicians and reformers, for proportional representation, are honest enough to give the voters a transferable vote rather than confine the preference vote to an oligarchy of party-list makers.

Rhys Burriss

June 4th, 2009 9:19pm Report this comment

Attempting to do so much at once is over ambitious - there will be insufficient consensus to enable speedy decisions to be reached on such a range of ideas. It will be kicked into the long grass.
But what could be done ( and which would be extremely effective in getting into Parliament persons of wide and deep experience OUTSIDE politics [ unlike the present load of MPs' bag carriers and researchers] ) and should surely be comparatively easy to agree on would be the opening up of the selection process for parties' candidates for MP .

Open Primaries Now in other words.
I doubt very much if the new intake ( much less the old) will be that enthusiastic for a reform which lessens their own likelihood of re-election. OPEN PRIMARIES NOW needs no legislation and costs nothing.
The constituency parties should be allowed to choose whomever they wish - perhaps pre-selecting 3 or 4 candidates any one of which they could live with. Then the final selection could be opened to a public meeting at which all attending could listen to, discuss with the candidates - and make their choice. It would at last give ordinary people a real choice as to who their MP is, whether the seat is 'safe' or not under the present system. Yet party discipline in the Commons can still be maintained, if perhaps less tightly than hitherto.
At least the as yet unselected-for constituencies could trial this between now and the General Election. What harm could possibly arise ?

paul gilboy

June 6th, 2009 10:06am Report this comment

A written constitution along the lines of the american model will give us a frame work to start with.
The first line should read the sovereignty of the english people is invested in the parliament of the english people and this is inviolable.
No treaty could bind us, no government can sell us.
We will no longer be at the mercy of fashion or whim, ego or individual.

Post comment