Politics

6 June 2009

Fraser Nelson reviews the week in politics

And who should do the reforming? While Mr Brown may want to seize the initiative, it is worth asking if Britain’s democracy can be plausibly renewed by a parliament which has so disgraced itself. More than half of the MPs after the next election will be newly elected — a greater renewal of personnel than was achieved even by the 1832 Great Reform Act where a third of MPs were changed in the election that followed. It is the latest intake of MPs who are the most enthusiastic advocates of reform. There would be an even greater appetite after the general election, which is looking more overdue by the day.

More radical still is the idea that the Prime Minister should be directly elected rather than (in effect) selected by the electoral college of the House of Commons. This would make it impossible for anyone to plot their way to Number 10 — sorry, Gordon — and also open up the race far beyond the gene pool of Westminster. There may also be a case for allowing a Prime Minister to fill his government with experts — to have former generals, rather than university lecturers, running the Ministry of Defence, for example. That would spell the end of MPs whose sole ambition was to get their hands on a red box. Well and good: but how would such ministers be held to account if they were not in the legislature?

These are suggestions to start the debate. Some may be too small to make any difference; others may be freighted with unintended consequences; others too radical for a country that, even in time of crisis, prefers evolution to revolution. But we now open the floor to Spectator readers, who surely embody Britain’s reserves of common sense and intellect, and invite your suggestions. Write to us at 22 Old Queen St or you can email your suggestions to reform@spectator.co.uk. Then, using PoliticsHome’s technology, we will put your ideas to a mass audience and ensure that the conversation on reform is not limited to the Westminster echo chamber. One thing is for sure: it is a conversation that is many years overdue.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4

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