Douglas Carswell MP: Parliament isn’t working

Douglas Carswell, MP for Harwich & Clacton and co-founder of Direct Democracy, laments how voters don't have real control over politicians and politicians don't have real control over the real power-brokers - senior civil servants.

Another year, another Queen's Speech.  Yet more headline grabbing laws churned out by our politicians.  Parliament produces a torrent of legislation, but is it any good at putting the spotlight on government?

The House of Commons is a house of charades; Ministers pretend to make the big decisions and we MPs pretend to hold them to account.  Voters give up.

Parliamentary procedure is partly to blame.  Debating rules favour seniority over originality, ensuring those with something fresh to say speak last, if at all.  It is a tradition for the Commons Speaker to defend the rights of the Commons – when in retirement.  If only Mr Speaker was as fierce when in the job.  Institutionally flat-footed, Parliament lacks punch.

Fresh into the Commons, and angry about what had happened to kids in my constituency forced out of their special school, I jumped at the chance of serving on the Commons Education Select Committee.  Two years, three foreign trips and half a dozen reports later, how much has made any difference? Control over education lies not with politicians promising to improve it, but with unaccountable officials.

Believing that MPs have a duty to understand our armed forces, I volunteered to visit our troops in Afghanistan.  There I discovered shortages of helicopters, apaches, drones and much else.  Worse, I began to suspect our troops lack these things because our limited defence budget gets spent in the interests of the defence contractors, not our armed forces.  Yet none of the questions I am allowed to table gets answered properly.  None of the officials responsible gets held to account.  Ministers mouth nonsense and our soldiers pay the price.             

Parliamentary scrutiny is all the harder since it is not always clear who now has executive power.  Real power has slipped away from Ministers to an alphabet soup of quangos – the QCA, FSA, CSA, DVLA, DPA, to name a random few – call the shots.  Vain, self-important politicians might not wish to admit it, but this “quango state” now runs us - not those you vote for.

After two years in the Commons, I have met most Ministers, but I have yet to meet anyone who really runs our health service, schools or criminal justice system.  Ministers have become mere mouthpieces for their departments.  As in the TV series “Yes Minister”, it is the senior civil servants, Sir Humphrey Appleby, whose really decides.  The biggest decisions most Ministers make in their departments are on the wine list.

Does it really matter which MP happens to currently have the role of Home Secretary, or Defence Minister, or Foreign Secretary?  Not, it would seem, according to the 40% of voters who now choose not to vote.

Some of the blame must rest with Labour. There is a perverse irony in Gordon Brown’s promise to “restore trust” in a political system he has done so much to debase.  Yet it is more than merely the failure of one particular political party.

Conservatives are right to promise change; more free votes in the Commons, more time for debate, announcements made from the floor of the House.  Yet no government will long be held in check for such promises of self-restraint alone.

Parliament needs shaking up; less ritual, more rigorous holding to account.  Rule changes should mean shorter, punchier debates, with MPs contributing because they have something worth saying.  Commons committees should be given the power to confirm the appointment of senior civil servants and judges.  Fears that such a move would “politicise” the civil service and judiciary ignores the reality that both already form public policy.  They have been politicised not in a partisan sense, but because they have more power to decide things than those we actually elect.  Democratising the appointment procedures (with the prospect of a P45) might at least make unelected officials a little less inept - and more respectful of the popular opinion they currently despise.

More than just the tools, the House of Commons needs the appetite for holding the executive to account.  Under our current system, MPs are encouraged to see themselves as a cheerleader for either the current government, or a future one.  Apart from the mad and the bad, few are there as champions of the people against government as an end in itself.  MPs are overwhelmingly elected from seats that they realistically stand little chance of losing in a General Election.  Governments may form or fall in marginal seats, but most constituencies are far from marginal.  Part rotten borough, part one-party fiefdom, “safe seats” mean many MPs simply do not have to worry about what the voters think.  Once in the Commons, their careers rise or fall not because of what voters think, but because of what their party bosses – the Whips - decide.   
Could we not have an electoral system that forced individual MPs to be more responsive to the voters, and less in hoc to the Whips?  Proportional representation would certainly make matters worse, isolating the Westminster village from the voters.  Yet multi-member constituencies, where voters had two or three MPs representing them, could make our political class more accountable.

Competition in business is good for the consumer.  So, too, in politics, competition would benefit the voter.  Multi-member seats, coupled with US-style open primary selections, would ensure proper political competition.  From Labour heartlands to Tory shires, from the humblest backbencher to the grandest Minister, voters everywhere would get a meaningful choice over who represented them.

People do not just need more power to choose their MPs.  Voters need power to have a direct say over what MPs debate and vote on.  Like in New Zealand and Switzerland, people should have a right to initiate laws and hold referendums – and force MPs to discuss the issues that matter to them.  Instead of leaving it entirely to politicians to hold government to account, people should be able to do the job themselves.

As a Conservative, I no longer believe that the status quo is worth conserving.  Unchecked executive power has turned Britain into a Big State country in which “more government” has become the default answer to every public policy question.  Britain is heading in the wrong direction; we need radical changes in the way we are governed to turn things around.  It might mean we get better value politicians, too.

Comments

[Erasmus]

your colleagues may not thank you, but you tell the truth Mr Carswell

[Tony Makara]

Although I am opposed to state funding for political parties I would not object to state funding to help non-political candidates apply for election to a specially designed appendage to parliament. This would not along the lines of any sort of Gordon Brown puppet citizens jury but rather would exist as a completely independent tier with the ability to put bills before parliament proper. Of course any such state funding would require individuals to pass certain criteria to eliminate crank candidates. There are many fine people in our country who could make a real contribution to debate and political life but who prefer to operate outside of the existing party political structures. We should find a way to bring such people into public service.

[David Boothroyd]

The executive agencies referred to were set up in the late 1980s and given more freedom in the early 1990s; until 1993, Parliamentary written answers from the agencies were not even printed in Hansard. The approval hearings at Select Committees are a very positive step in this area so long as they are not made party political.

As Philip Cowley often points out to sadly no effect, MPs are now much less craven to the Whips than before. Also, 'Direct democracy' normally refers to something more than citizens-initiated referendums (an idea which has been in practice for nearly a century).

[Moral minority]

Parliament isn't working because it has less and less power. Devolution has undermined the Palace of Westminster. The new EU treaty will reduce it to little more of the equivalent of a regional assembly.

I like the idea of US primaries but not multi-member seats. One person, one vote, one member!

[Ian Parker]

A very accurate description of our so-called democracy today. Low voter turnouts do not reflect apathy, in my view. Instead, they reflect the glaringly obvious fact that parties have become wholly unrepresentative of the views of the electorate. With Labour striving manfully to pervert the normal democratic processes still further by rigging electoral boundaries in their favour, they obviously feel even less need to be accountable.

The upshot of this gulf between the notionally elected and their would-be electors, unfortunately, is a significant increase in arrogance that rapidly evolves to breed corruption. I’m afraid we’re now seeing regular examples of corruption in office; the government lies with impunity, it can also break the law with impunity, aided by a well-structured web within the judiciary appointed and controlled by government ministers. Public servants remain immune from any censure so long as they promote and execute the will of the party in government. Indeed, under the current administration, this often appears to be the basis on which they are rewarded. Individuals feel increasingly powerless against this massive machine. It was once said that Britain has the best legal system that money can buy. Never has this been more true.

We have, indeed, become a country stifled and hemmed in by big government. Our freedoms, once taken for granted, are being eroded at an alarming rate. Corruption and incompetence are becoming more and more endemic. All of this is a direct consequence of the breakdown of genuine democracy.

[Christine Constable]

I couldn't agree more, but then this position was no different when the Tories were in power and the Tories have done little to improve the situation (by providing a robust expose) in the 10 years they have been in opposition.

The Tories singularly refuse to co-operate with like minded political groupings and pressure groups believing they have all the answers, when in fact what they truly lack is sincere grass root support and/or affection and above all original (rather than copied) ideas!

The Tories have been part of the problem.

Creating the blue print for the break up of England into Euro Regions, weakening the power of local government, setting in train the QUANGO nation, and an almost and complete abject failure in dealing with the progressive infection of the Civil Service, media and Academia.

In virtually all the areas that could really have benefitted from a thorough clean out, the Tories during their 18 year tenure did little or nothing to get centre right ideas of small state and self reliance back into the psyche of the UK.

Now that job will be monumental, if the Tories ever get back in power they will have a state edifice to dismantle which will result in the predictable Union fights and "stop the cuts" jibes the Tories wrestled with in the 70's/80's.

Taking on the mushrooming payroll vote will be a nightmare!

"Some of the blame must rest with Labour"? Are you joking?

It is analysis like this that makes those who used to have some support for the Tories throw their hands up in horror.

This is largely to do with Labour as they have been in charge for the last decade and also has alot to do with the Tories who allowed this ridiculous "Yes Minister" excuse for government to continue unchecked.

Why pray are the Civil Service in charge of anything?

Another unaccountable QUANGO no one ever voted for? I have little faith in their competence these days, daily disasters are a testimony to their ineffectuality.

In my years as a change management consultant and as an advisor to a leading Government Executive Agency there is one truism that runs through everything. If the system is rotten, then start looking for the cause at the top.

It was that conclusion that forced me into politics. Because it was obvious to me the incompetence and lack of leadership I saw in the Civil Service was indicative of the incompetence and lack of leadership at the top of Politics.

Certainly my work in trying to get the whole rotting Parliamentary system revised and renewed was not the plan I ever set out on, however, if we want to sort out the very real problems of brave soldiers dieing and being ignored because the MOD can't get its act together nor (apparently) can give a damn about its incompetence then it is high time the civil service had a good seeing to.

Equally, the nonesense that is the Home Office needs root and branch reform, not least of all divesting itself of all those illegal immigrants handling security matters. I could go on, but what's the point? No politicians really does anything to deal with the problem, mouthing platitudes and supping tea in the tearoom waffling on about the need to change (rather than doing anything practical) has made me deeply cynical and despairing for our nation.

"Unfit for purpose" is the mantra given to a large part of the civil service.

It is completely the responsibility of the governing party to sort the mess out, and if Labour can't do it, past performance on the Tories places them in the same doubtful position to effect change.

I often find career politicians rarely posess the skills to analyse problems and rectify organisational dysfunction. Of course expensive consultants can help, but in the end what this country needs are politicians who actually know and understand what needs to be done and how to do it! So until that happy day arrives it will be business as usual...........

[David Belchamber]

What you say is even more true of the EU; if the constitution treay is ratified, how can you and I have any power to get rid of the faceless people who make the bulk of our laws. A few thoughts for discussion:
1. subsidiarity is an ugly word but a useful concept and should be brought in.
2. is there any practical chance now of rejecting all EU legislation that does not go through Parliament as if it had originated in the HoC?
3. do away with the whips.

[John Leonard]

I agree Parliament isn't working in the way it should. However, I do not believe providing a few referendums (always welcome) will provide the rejuvenation of our political system that is needed.

It is not so much the real issues they debate (which are usually defined by manifesto or national need) but the behaviour of elected politicians and the way they alter and abuse their own rules that is probably the most frustrating issue.

Let me use an analogy, if someone proposed scrapping the Football Association (or the RFU or the TCCB) and handing the control of the respective rules of the game over to the top clubs allowing them to change the rules at will there would be uproar and outcry.

Yet, we have politicians and political parties, who have control to the greater extent, of their own rules of behaviour, their terms and conditions and what is worse they control the very rules of the game they play, our democracy. Furthermore, when they play the 'referee' is one of their own or the body concerned directly reports to them.

To have such powers is a conflict of interests and will always lead to accusations of self-interest.

Until Parliament and all matters electoral and political are independently controlled by a neutral third party that is directly democratically answerable to the people and the Head of State, what's the point of having referendums on the real issues. While politicians can 'fix' the rules that bind them what's the point of believing in our democratic system?

If such a change was made perhaps we would not have had the interminable debate about the EU, the WLQ, party funding, cash for honours, the Lord Chancellors debacle, PR, misuse of the communications budgets etc, etc.

Perhaps our politicians could then provide better focus on the things that do matter to the people such as Criminal Justice, Poverty, Education, Health and so forth!

We had a perfectly good democratic system once upon a time until politicians started fixing the rules of the game. It's about time they gave up those powers to change the democratic rules and gave democracy back to the people. Now are they honourable enough to do so?

[James Gilmour]

A useful analysis, and you point in the right direction for a solution - Parliament to hold the Executive properly to account, and the voters to hold elected MPs properly to account. But you confuse the mechanisms for effecting these essential changes.

For real competition in multi-member constituencies you need the single transferable vote system of proportional representation. Its effects are very different from party-list systems of proportional representation. STV-PR would shift the balance of power from the parties to the voters, and that would shift the balance of power within the Parliament. Until we make these changes all else will be ineffective.

But US-style open primary selections should have no place in your revised electoral set up. Analysis of the voting evidence suggests that far from ensuring proper political competition, US-style primaries reduce effective competition among differing political views when it comes to the real election.

[Ken Stevens]

When it first hit the streets, I felt that Direct Democracy was going to be the big idea that would give the Tories a new direction & purpose and revitalise public interest in politics generally.

I'm not clever enough to add anything extra to what has already been said above but I do urge the party to take the concept on board.

[Chad Noble]

You write complete sense Douglas, but with Cameron actually proposing to keep MP's 'in the fold' by giving independent candidates who win seats nothing but giving *losing* LibLabCon candidates tens of thousands of pounds for their party, it is obvious that the real aim is simply to protect and insulate the political class even further.

Is anyone from the Tory Party going to defend Cameron's plan to exclude independent MP's from his state funding formula?

[David Lindsay]

The supremacy of British over EU law must be restored, and the latter made applicable in Britain only once passed through both Houses as if it had originated in one or the other of them. This would require Parliament to sit a great dael more often.

Furthermore, Britain is a pluralistic country. First Past The Post was fine while the parties were themselves broadly based coalitions of politicians with strong local bases and close ties to wider civil society. But that is simply no longer the case. So we need new parties. And we need a new electoral system.

Then there is the question of party funding. State funding must entail some degree of State control, which can often be necessary and beneficial. But, for political parties, it would be lethal. Only parties that met the organisational and political requirements of some committee of Notting Hill and Primrose Hill diners would be able to afford to contest elections. No wonder Polly Toynbee and the BBC are so keen on it.

But the existing parties are literally dying out anyway. Hence, in fact, the clamour for State funding. What if this process were accelerated by constitutional reform, killing them off once and for all, rather than letting them die slowly, kept alive artificially for years or even decades at public expense? This could be done, and here is how.

Each of the 99 areas having a Lord Lieutenant should have six Senators, with each of us voting for one candidate and the top six being declared elected at the end. There should also be a further six Cross Benchers elected in the same way by the country as a whole. The House of Commons should be elected by dividing the country into 100 constituencies of equally sized electorates, with each constituency electing six MPs in the same manner as above (and, wherever possible, with constituencies straddling the United Kingdom's internal borders). Thus, there would be 600 Senators and 600 MPs. And after all, the means of electing the Senate would guarantee strong representation for natural communities on the ground.

There would thus have to be at least six parties; there could not be any fewer. But there might well be eight, there could be 12, there might even be more. And then there would be Independents. Remember, six people per constituency would be bound to get in. Quite an incentive to stand, especially if deposits were replaced with a requirement of nomination by five per cent of the electorate, allowing in principle for up to 20 candidates at a time.

Each party should give the whole electorate the final say in the choice between two potential PPCs (at constituency level) and two potential Leaders (at national level) in the course of each Parliament. Likewise, in the course of each Parliament, the 10 policies most popular with each party's branches should be put out to a ballot of the whole electorate, with each of us entitled to vote for up to two, and with the top seven guaranteed inclusion in the next General Election manifesto.

And each MP or Senator elected would be given a fixed allowance transferable to a party or campaign of his or her choice, conditional upon matching funding by resolution of an independent membership organisation such as a trade union, the name of which would then appear in brackets after any party or other designation on the ballot paper when next that politician sought election. All other funding (i.e., neither by such resolution nor in the form of this allowance) would be made illegal, with spending capped at 2400 times that allowance.

Thus, MPs and Senators would be required to have such links to wider civil society that wider civil society was prepared to pay for their campaigns, as well as the local bases necessary to secure selection reselection. People without such links and bases would be kept out of Parliament.

There are many reasons for wanting these reforms. One is that they would strengthen the Union. This is obvious from the proposed powers of the Senate (the same revising powers in relation to the devolved bodies as in relation to the House of Commons), and from the way in which Parliament would once again exercise its full and proper role (i.e., enacting legislation across all policy areas for all parts of the United Kingdom).

Furthermore, the manner of the Senate's election would make the North and South of Scotland, and North, Mid and West Wales, feel a lot better-represented than at Holyrood or Cardiff.

Constituencies for the election of the House of Commons might straddle the borders between Scotland and England, and between Wales and England; indeed, the law might even state that this should be done wherever possible. Part of Scotland, in particular, might form a single constituency with part or all of Northern Ireland.

The new parties that would emerge from these reforms might and should organise throughout the United Kingdom, i.e., including in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that all sections of the community there would vote for nationwide parties in elections to Westminster if they could, however they voted in elections to the devolved bodies or to local councils. (The Tories' lack of success there has been because of the failure of Labour and the Lib Dems to make it a proper contest, fully part of the national one.)

And since there would be at least six such national parties, would anyone still vote for the SNP or Plaid Cymru? Only separatist fundamentalists in the former case, and only language fascists in the latter. Mercifully, there are nowhere near enough of either of those to secure the election either of any MPs or of any Senators.

No mountains of spoiled papers. No disenfranchisement of rural ares, especially not under the first scheme. No ridiculous spectacle of people losing their seats to members of the same party as themselves. But always the maximum possible one sixth of the seats in each House, and so probably always the single largest party in each, for us economically social-democratic, morally and socially conservative British and Commonwealth patriots. And real Labourites, real Tories and real Liberals in Parliament, delivered by other new mass membership parties with, like us, endless links to wider civil society at all levels of both.

Plus extremists? Well, Respect is breaking up anyway, and not of its constituent parts or anything like them would stand much hope, except perhaps in parts of Scotland depending on exactly how the realignment of parties worked out, so it is rather unlikely even there. At most, there might be 11 BNP MPs, but probably not even that, and certainly no BNP Senators.

Six Sinn Fein Senators and however many MPs, but no real change there. Likewise, the DUP (with its unrecanted old links to the Ulster Resistance), plus perhaps one or two UDP/PUP types. Scottish and Welsh opponents of, or doubters about, the Union, as at present.

Indeed, this system would actually clear out most or all of the current extremists in Parliament: the old Stalinists and Trotskyists in or around the Euston Manifesto Group, and the old stooges of apartheid South Africa and Pinochet's Chile in or around the Henry Jackson Society, currently discharging their parliamentary responsibilities under the day-to-day direction of a cabal of crooks and cranks across the Atlantic. Where is their party? Frit.

And rightly so, not least if this system were introduced, since such a party might very well end up with no seats in either House, and would certainly be no real force whatever in British politics. What's not to like?

[Comstock]

I still believe PR leads to weak government.

One possibility is 1st/2nd preference, as is used in London for the mayor.

Another (purely from my own idea) is to group up constituencies in 3s. If the winning party gets 50% of the vote, they get all 3 seats. If not, they get 2 and the 2nd place party gets 1.

And we should consider compulsory voting (with a none of the above option of course)

[Christine Constable]

@comstock when you say "PR leads to weak government" that really presupposes that "winner takes all" is a civilised or democratic way of managing anything.

I would have thought the Tories knowing that they have a majority of votes in ENgland, but, through demographic shicannery and gerrymandering have got themselves into a situation where equal votes in England for Labour and Conservative on a first past the post basis will still result in Labour grabbing a 60 seat majority.

That isn't democracy and frankly first past the post is an out moded method of deciding governments. In the same way just a choice of two parties that swop power between themselves and seek to exclude everyone else is something that needs to be cast into the past.

The fact is we are a modern educated society and the buffoonery that is the existing political system is not worthy of the country.

Tory and Labour is no longer good enough - there are many shades in between and many aspects of policy people wish to decide on a case by case basis rather than agreeing with the out moded beliefe "my party right or wrong".

Many people no longer identify with Labour or Tory and if oyu don't believe me look at the voting trends. Meanwhile more people than ever are engaged in direct action and activism within their communities on specific issues.

The two party system is failing, we have to reinvent democracy or else the people will leave it in droves, as they already are - irrespective of oyur personal views!

[Deborah]

We have a system which excludes politicians trying to generate real change whilst promoting those who support the status quo by doing as they are told.

The system is broken.

[Adam in London]

Maybe Mr Carswell would have met the Permenant Secretary at the DCFS (David Bell) if he'd bothered to turn up when the Permenant Secretary last gave evidence to the Education & Skills Committee (11th July 2007) to talk about the Department's Annual Report and change from DfES to DCFS. Bell was there with the Director-General for Corporate Services at the DCFS Jon Thompson.

[John Leonard]

Christine Constable:

For those who do not know there is a Christine Constable who is vice chair of the English Democrats - are you the same Christine Constable?.

The rest of this posts assumes you are that Christine Constable.

Perhaps you should have stated your vested interest in attacking the current system and the Conservative & Labour Party?

The two party system is failing, we have to reinvent democracy or else the people will leave it in droves, as they already are - irrespective of oyur personal views

I am rather disappointed that someone with such a lofty position within one of our newer parties has wasted an opportunity to provide an alternative vision. Instead you have two posts full of whining rhetoric (beware the ides of March) and no solutions. We know whats wrong! Do you have ANY ideas on this matter?

This is about identifying solutions to the problem and it seems the EDP have no answers.

Unfortunately your attacks seem to be motivated not in the best interests of the British People but in the interests of your own party.

As a voter who possibly thought that potentially the EDP might be my new home if I tired of the Conservative Party. I am greatly disappointed.

Now will you agree that the first matter to be addressed is recovering the constitution and democracy for the people or are you like seemingly all the other parties purely interested in grappling for as much power as possible whilst pretending that you are addressing the country's democratic issues?

[Matt Wright]

We should get a fresh piece of paper out and while being aware of the current situation be bold enough to say how do we want to structure democracy for the modern world. The guiding principle should be power exercised as close to the people as possible. Ask voters at an election what they want constitutionally covering the main issues - the EU, Union, Localism etc and then get on with it. I believe this process would lead to a desire for a significant number of powers from the EU to be repatriated to the Union represented at Westminster. However many more powers will also migrate locally to counties and preferably to families and people themselves. In terms of a system for organising ourselves in a modern complex world it is more likely issues can be decided by communities, families and people themselves than by the state. I like DCs phrase about analogue and digital worlds and in those terms our democratic system is still using crystal sets yet the population is the Ipod generation! Its farcical.

Matt

[Comstock]

"when you say "PR leads to weak government" that really presupposes that "winner takes all" is a civilised or democratic way of managing anything."

Whilst I do get the point you are trying to make (and it is a good one), it's hard to imagine Lloyd George, Clem Attlee or....go on I'll say it......that Woman Who Shall Remain Nameless managing to push through change if they were nothing more than the largest of a series of parties in a coalition.

Do we need radical change at the minute? Possibly not, but that isn't to say we won't do in the future.

[StudentTory]

I agree the whole system needs overhauling. I wonder where the House of Lords would fit into all of this?

[Comstock]

"I wonder where the House of Lords would fit into all of this?"

This is something I've geniunely changed my mind on as I've got older.

IMHO it should be kept, both because it can delay bills and so allow further debate (if the HOC still decides to go ahead it can) and because it has the ultimate power of veto over an act of self perpetuation (thus preventing a bill intended to extended the life of parliament beyond five years-and hence dictatorship)

[Man in a Shed]

Mr Carswell - you are also making the case for a politicised civil service, whether you realise it or not.

This would be a good thing as it would allow the executive to combine ministerial and mandarin roles with a full choice of talent from the country - not just the professional political class.

A brave article - I hope you are able to build upon it.

[Peter Webb]

In other words the of machinery of government has broken down ! Many of the arguments call for a root and branch reform of aspects of the political system and democratic institutions. But since the management of change is not government's strong point, what to do if any reform would sink the ship? We have evolved to where are, do need to change, but with care.
The only answer is to define objectives and project manage change over time. The push has to come from the top. This would emphasise decision-making and operational concerns, good management, transformed public accounting and so on. It would be necessary to enforce delegation by ruthlessly cutting those at the centre who won't currently 'let go'.My experience in an industrial conglomerate showed me how it is possible to have global reach with a small HQ
Examples: Isn't all the talk round local government and its funding rather wasted when no-one really knows what local government is for. Central government seems to let it be only on sufference. Take the NHS: 60 years ago the government took the health service away from the people. It is now desparately trying to give it back but without knowing how to do that.
Let a reduced Westminster and Whitehall get on and Govern, defend the realm and sell us overseas.

[Jake]

"Let a reduced Westminster and Whitehall get on and Govern, defend the realm and sell us overseas." Peter Webb

I would add " and keep their noses out of the internal governance of the component countries of the UK
including out of England "

Westminster and the British civil service is smug , out of touch and horribly corrupted by New Labour . It was getting stale even before them but Blair and Brown have really reinforced the problem .

The only real way to renewal for England and for Westminster is to take Westminster's English responsibilities away from them . They must be transferred to an English parliament and executive and civil service .

Westminster can therefore concentrate on British problems only .

[sm]

Constitutional change is needed.

1)to protect the powers of parliament from being given away abdicated without a mandate.( for example the EU Constitutional Treaty). Acts of treason.

2)to oversee the laws passed by MP's concerning their direct interests to prevent current abuse of the system e.g. laws specifically exempting allowances from tax or proper scrutiny, eg receipts and proper purpose rules, wholly, exclusively and neccessary test for all other employees.

Incredibly large pension provision unheard elsewhere in the public sector, never mind those lucky to be in a rare private sector fund, whoose pensions are taxed as opposed to the HMG unfunded liabilites.

3) To hold institutional incompetence and gross negligence to account. e.g. Prisons full and consequent
peverting of the course of justice when sentencing. Negligent immigration policy wrt to scale of legal immigration. Also the laissez fair attitude to mass illegal immigration and the abuse of the asylum rules in a vast number of cases.

4) Be able to force an election via certain trigger events.

5) Be able to recall MP's and replace them them whilst sitting, if certain trigger events happen.

6) Be able to force issues to be debated and voted on. e.g interpretation of HRA , and setting guidelines for better balancing the rights of the community/victims ,with the rights of the perpertrators.

7)To examine the executives case for armed interventions and ensuring that adequate resouces are made available to armed forces.
(on pain of imprisonment to those who commit them without it)

To name a few.

[ukipwebmaster]

Great article Doug - pity you're in the wrong party.