Little wonder that Gordon Brown is gravely concerned about the state of British democracy. Labour’s poll rating has this week hit a (new) postwar low — and that was before Thursday’s elections. As the Prime Minister waits in misery for the final results on Sunday he may be tempted to recall the satirical words of Bertolt Brecht: ‘Wouldn’t it be easier to dissolve the people and elect another in their place?’ But Brown will go one better. He intends to change Britain’s constitutional system: the rules of the game, so to speak.
His plan for a National Council for Democratic Renewal deserves to be taken seriously. No matter how pitiful a figure Mr Brown strikes in Number 10, he still has the power — in theory, at least — to enact whatever reform he wishes. He has, in this case, a strong motive to do so. To survive in Number 10 he must argue, however implausibly, that anger and contempt for the system in general has simply become focused upon the governing party specifically. This is not a rejection of Labour, he must argue, but an instruction to clean up politics.
Admittedly, he has a point. It is undeniable that the voters are dissatisfied with the Westminster system as a whole. David Cameron himself does not claim that his 20-point opinion poll lead reflects an overwhelming nationwide clamour for a Tory government. Cameron’s slogan is ‘Vote for Change’ — but change to what? There is every chance that the Prime Minister will simply impose his own personal blueprint upon Westminster, after declaring that his National Council has successfully intuited the will of the nation.
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.
The toothlessness of parliament could be addressed by giving select committees more power. The Treasury select committee, for example, is a particularly egregious example. It has latterly specialised in beating up bankers, but never questioned the debt bubble which has burst so spectacularly, or noticed the failure of British banking regulation which has cost the taxpayer so dear. Small wonder given that Labour controlled its membership — as, to be fair, the Tories would do if they were in power.
As things stand, Mr Cameron proposes to give up on parliament in this area of oversight and establish a new quango — the Office for Budget Responsibility — whose job it would be to instruct the government to control spending. An admirable aim, no doubt; but this reform would not address the fundamental democratic deficit. Would it not be better to require each department to justify its spending each year (a return to the Westminster of the 1860s)? The chairmen of such committees could be chosen in a secret ballot by all MPs, thus promoting those most likely to hold the Prime Minister’s feet to the fire, rather than the most biddable toadies.
Then comes the topical matter of MPs’ contracts. Many members argue that they should be paid ‘properly’ but lose the right to claim expenses. Should their £64,800 salary be raised closer, say, to the £88,100 paid to a district judge? Or is their salary, already three times the national average and with ample holiday and pension, generous enough? How important is it that we reduce the number of MPs, and how many of the 646 should survive? Should they be permitted (or even, as Charles Moore has suggested in these pages, encouraged) to hold down second jobs?
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.
Comments