Peter Franklin: Learning the lessons of yellow Saturday

It would, of course, be very wrong to laugh at our Prime Minister’s recent humiliation (a point I made forcefully to the casualty nurse as she was sewing up my sides last Sunday). With the broad vistas of a full Parliament opening up before us, we’d do much better to learn the lessons of the last few weeks.

Let us ignore the farcical aspects of this story, which require no further comment from the Conservative Party – and certainly no repeat of that half-witted little stunt with the brown bottles. Instead, let us ponder upon the tragic elements, in particular the betrayal of the electorate and their hopes for a healthier democracy.

When Gordon Brown became Prime Minister he spoke of a new kind of politics. It was a cathartic moment, a sense that the spin and sleaze of the Blair years had fled from the presence of a better man. David Cameron, ill-advisedly packaged as the ‘heir to Blair’, found himself treated more as an effigy than an heir.

But then came the miracle of the conference season. You’ll recall Ming Campbell pointing a bony finger at an ecologically-responsible toilet and the sniggering that followed. Well, looking back we can now view this episode as a prophetic foretelling of the fate – and indeed the content – of Gordon Brown’s fresh start.

But the thing is that the people of this country still want a new kind of politics. With Brown at bay and Campbell enjoying his retirement as leader of the Lib Dems, the ball is in our court. We need to commit to a programme of serious, far-reaching reform to our political institutions. Clearly, the European policy and localisation agendas are of huge relevance here, but they do not excuse us from proposing reforms to Parliament itself, the heart of our democracy.

Here are five measures which we need to adopt if we are to convince the public that our new kind of politics is more substantial than the gimmicks proposed by Gordon Brown:

(1) Fixed-term Parliaments

Others have already made the point, but last week Gordon Brown made an ass of our constitutional arrangements as well as himself. As long as early dissolutions are allowed in exceptional circumstances, there is no good reason why general elections should not otherwise take place at regular intervals. We really need to stop mucking about on this one and make a clear commitment to fixed-term Parliaments.

(2) Robust caps on party spending

Cash for honours is a bad thing, but so is taxpayer-funded political campaigning. There should be some money for the Office of the Leader of the Opposition and some equivalent of a civil service for opposition parties, but everything else should be funded through private donations and subject to strict spending limits. The only other option is a money-chasing frenzy that enriches the ad men and PR spivs while impoverishing our democracy. We don’t need that and most people don’t want it. We should be on their side.

(3) A directly elected speaker

Didn’t see that one coming, did you? But why should our MPs (or rather, the Government whips) choose the individual who’s supposed to keep them in line? Surely, the Speaker should be someone who represents the interests of the people in Parliament – and someone with the democratic mandate to tell the Prime Minister to stop waffling and answer the questions put to him. Any MP or ex-MP would be allowed to stand, but other than that the choice would be ours.

(4) Kick-ass select committees

I’m not suggesting ‘kick-ass’ as a technical term, but rather to convey a desire for a parliamentary committee structure that inspires terror in the hearts of ministers and civil servants. We could so worse than draw inspiration from the Americans in this regard. Their congressional committees matter in a way that ours simply do not.

(5) A fully elected House of Lords

I’ve heard some cobblers in my time, but none quite so plain as the notion that a directly elected upper chamber poses a threat to our democracy. Isn’t it amazing that every other nation in the free world somehow preserves its liberties, despite their reckless bicameral practices? That’s not to say we should duplicate the functions of the lower chamber. On the contrary, I think we could do something really quite creative here – but I’ll leave that for another time.

So there you go, a five point policy programme that would, if nothing else, deliver a new kind of politics. The fact that Labour, after ten years in power, has failed to do anything of this kind exposes a gap between rhetoric and action which citizen juries and other empty measures cannot hope to fill.

Of course, very few voters lie awake at night worrying about the constitution, but that doesn’t mean they don’t want change. Moreover, if a bunch of politicians can’t deliver on something as easy to reform as the rules they set for themselves, then no one is going trust them on the really difficult stuff like security or the economy.

We shouldn’t imagine that by delaying the next election we’ve already won it. We still have to prove that we’re better than Brown. Let’s not squander the opportunity he’s given us.

Comments

[Chad Noble]

"but everything else should be funded through private donations and subject to strict spending limits."

All that will mean is that the money is diverted through slightly different channels, it will *not* ever stop those who want to spend a lot to help a political party from doing so.

All we need is 100% transparency.

All inflows, of all kinds should be publicly listed within 30 days of receipt, clearly identifying the source.

That's it. No more rules, limits or restrictions needed.

Money will always influence politics as much as other walks of life.

Don't ever kid yourself that this can be prevented.

[Tony Makara]

The way to enhance democracy is to have regular plebicites, particularly at local level. A swipe card which could be used to cast a vote at the post office or town hall would bring a real sense of democracy to our people. Modern technology could make this possible and would be as safe as using a bank card.

[englandism]

'That's not to say we should duplicate the functions of the lower chamber. On the contrary, I think we could do something really quite creative here – but I'll leave that for another time.'

Therein lies the inevitable.

If we are acquiescent to a federal Europe then why not do the unmentionable and inevitable and establish the UK federal senate?

One would need an English parliament, naturally, and the infrastructure for both institutions is already in place.

[IRJMilne]

"...a five point policy programme that would, if nothing else, deliver a new kind of politics."

Quite. It seems to amount largely to "change for the sake of change". UK government has never worked on a basis of rationalisation. An elected upper house would be entirely alien to Britain, and would be thoroughly wrong. It would create a second chamber filled with nothing but politicians not good enough for the Commons.

As Gordon Brown has ably demonstrated, fixed term parliaments hardly give an incumbent an unassailable electoral advantage.

"Caps on party spending" has some merit, but I worry that amounts to shooting ourselves in the foot, as we have the most money. If someone wants to work hard to earn enough money to campaign for a political agenda they believe in, I'm not at all sure that we should block them from doing so.

A directly elected speaker would be no good. Members of Parliament have a better idea of how parliament works outside of PMQs than the general public do. The fact that the present speaker is no good should not make us forget that previous speakers were generally quite competent.

And our present select commitees are quite capable; and we seem presently determined only to shoot ourselves, as we're on the way into government.

This seems like a wide ranging plan to "rock the ship of state" and I don't see what it's all meant to add up to, why the pressing need, etc.

[Jon Gale]

Short answer: NO

Longer answer:

We are supposed to be conservatives. We are not supposed to propose meddling with the constitution because it seems like a good idea at the time, especially not in order to "convince the public that our new kind of politics is more substantial than the gimmicks proposed by Gordon Brown"

(1) Fixed-term Parliaments

Why change the constitution because of one exceptional call for an early election - which didn't happen anyway.

Perhaps a one line bill reaffirming Her Majesty's right to refuse early elections if there is no need. But that is as far as I would go!

(3) A directly elected speaker

No, No, No. A directly elected speaker would create a partisan presidential figure who controls the parliamentary agenda.

(5) A fully elected House of Lords

Life peers would be better in my opinion, Pauline Neville Jones and Digby Jones show how an appointed (or partly appointed) is/can be invaluable in getting non-career politicians into public life. The last thing we want is PR elected house with a list system.

The "undemocratic" HoL has been the most effective brake on NuLabs draconian measures because once appointed they cannot be controlled effectively by the party machine.

We really need to stop these proposals mucking about with constituonal changes like a buch of LibDems.

[David Lindsay]

1. Yes.

2. Give each MP a fixed sum of public money publicly transferable to the political party of his/her choice conditional upon matching funding by ballot of an independent membership organisation (yes, including a trade union), with the name of that organisation appearing alongside any party designation on the ballot paper.

3. NOOOO! This is a proposal for an elected Head of State in all but name.

4. Yes.

5. A Senate empowered to exercise the current functions of the Lords in relation to the Commons, but also to exercise those same functions in relation to the devolved bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Empowered to propose amendments to Money Bills, for acceptance or otherwise by the Commons.

Empowered to question any Minister (ordinarily by means of regular Question Time sessions), with no Minister drawn from it. Empowered to compel the Commons to vote on any EU legislation previously nodded through on the pestilential principle of “negative resolution”. And empowered to require a referendum on any Constitutional Bill as already identified for procedural purposes by the Speaker of the House of Commons.

The main electoral units would be the 99 areas having Lords Lieutenants (and conveniently called different things in each of the four parts of the United Kingdom). These differ enormously in population, but that is perfectly normal for the units employed to elect second chambers. Electors would vote for one candidate (who would themselves have to be electors in the constituency) by means of an X, and the top five would be declared elected at the end, giving 495 in all.

Lest it be alleged that this would create at least 352 utterly safe seats, including all 30 seats in Northern Ireland, parties would select their candidates by the following means: the two nominees of the most branches (including of affiliated organisations in Labour’s or any of its successors’ case) would be put to a binding ballot of all registered voters in the constituency. Candidates thus selected would be excused the need to secure nomination by five per cent of the electorate, the requirement that would otherwise replace the deposit for this and all other elections.

Furthermore, preserving the vitally necessary Cross Bench element, each elector would have the right to nominate up to one Independent candidate. In Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and each of the nine English regions, the eight candidates (themselves registered electors there) with the most such nominations would be put to an election as above: vote for one candidate, and the top five will be declared elected at the end. In like manner, the whole country would elect 10 Cross Benchers from a list of 15. There would thus always be at least 70 Cross Benchers.

Finally, with what to replace the bishops? Are the bishops there to embody the nation’s Christian heritage, an undeniable fact and with which seventy-two per cent of Britons identified at the last census? Or are they there to embody the population’s moral and spiritual values, a their predecessors undoubtedly did when they were first called to Parliament? People are never going to agree on this one, so we should give effect to both aspirations.

Scotland, Northern Ireland, the North East, the North West, Yorkshire and The Humber, and the East Midlands would comprise the Northern Area; Wales, the West Midlands, the South West, the South East, the East of England, and Greater London would comprise the Southern Area. In each area, people would vote for up to one (strictly non-partisan) candidate to embody the nation’s Christian heritage, and for up to one (strictly non-partisan, presumably non-Christian) candidate to embody moral and spiritual values in general. In each category and area, the top six (of the 10 with the most nominations) would be declared elected.

This gives an overall total of 589 Senators. The term of office would be a fixed six years, and the pay and expenses would be fixed at those of MPs. With the powers set out above, this Senate would be well worth having. Without any one or more of them, it would not be.

Finally, the system set out above for the selection of candidates should be appiedy, not just to the Senate, but to the House of Commons. At national level, it should also be used in the course of each Parliament to elect the Party Leaders. And the 10 most popular policies at Branch level in each party 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 subsequent General Electionan Manifesto.

[Teck]

"One would need an English parliament, naturally," englandism [Oct 10, 2007 at 10:00]

....and London, DC.

[Teck]

David Lindsay [Oct 10, 2007 at 11:11] suggests Christian and non-Christian representatives, which would highlight communal differences in a 'secular' Christian democracy, a principle I would not support.

On the whole, an interesting set of propositions but unwieldly and unproven substitution for something that works, albeit in need of updating in parts.

[englandism]

Hello David,

'The main electoral units would be the 99 areas having Lords Lieutenants (and conveniently called different things in each of the four parts of the United Kingdom).'

And

'In Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and each of the nine English regions,'

Is England one of four nations or an historically bogus, EU friendly, accumulation of nine regions without a coherent collective identity?

The latter smells of Prescott and his abortive attempt to sub-divide, control and abolish England.

What will we be singing when we eviscerate France this weekend?

'Come On the Nine Regions of Administratively Convenient Land Mass!'

Elizabeth 1st of England saw off the Armada.

Will Elizabeth II see off England?

[David Lindsay]

I have had Scottish Nationalists tell me that they would sign up to this scheme if the four parts of the UK had equal numbers of seats. But that simply wouldn't work, just because England is so large and internally diverse. I'm not saying that it's a bad idea in principle, just that it would never work in practice. Whenever Tories say England, they only mean the South East, anyway.

And they'll get nowhere playing the English card while led by a classic posh Scot, complete with the English public school, Oxbridge degree, Home Counties seat, and marriage into the English baronetage. Cameron has a house in his constituency, but only because he's the MP there. His real homes are in London and on the Isle of Jura. (Three houses and no mortgage at his age, take note.) As I say, classic.

So he simply cannot beleieve that some state school, non-Oxbrdge son of the manse from the old Fife coalbelt has the effrontery to be Prime Minister instead of him. And Brown knows full well that that is Cameron's feeling. On both sides, it's a Scottish thing.

[Graeme Coombes]

David Lindsay - Is this post tongue in cheek? I agree with the need for a fully elected HoL and agree that it should be called a 'Senate' but what you are proposing is a mind-bogglingly complicated electoral system that makes STV look straightforward! I have read through your suggestion twice and I still can't get my head around it.

Just a couple of (to me) obvious problems:

1. Your 'Independent' or 'Cross-Bench' people are never truly independent as the people who stand are likely to have some agenda or other - otherwise they wouldn't be standing. Your system of electing them is too complicated for words

2. 'Christian heritage'. Nobody, even an atheist, could deny that Europe was founded on christian principles. But the idea that this somehow justifies Bishops sitting in a Senate is ludicrous. Why not have the armed forces in there too to reflect our military heritage? and what about our literary heritage? Mercantile heritage? Seafaring heritage? (I could go on, but I am losing the will.)

3. "the 10 most popular policies at Branch level in each party 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 subsequent General Electionan Manifesto" - are you serious? You would end with EU withdrawal and hanging vs. Nationalisation and state-run everything. Only the fanatics would bother voting for this. We only have 60% turnouts for MPs!

4. I can't get any of your numbers to add up either.

Nice try, but this is not 'real world' thinking!

[David Lindsay]

All the numbers add up, and I'm sorry that you can't get your head around the idea of voting for one candidate by means of an X, with the requisite number declared elected at the end. It strikes me a simplicity itself.

Being Independent is not the same thing as having no political agenda.

[englandism]

'And they'll get nowhere playing the English card'

Polls tend to be quite influential as last weekend illustrated.

July 2006. Ipsos MORI. 41% said they favoured an English Parliament 'with similar law-making powers to the Scottish Parliament'.

January 2007. Newsnight. 61% percent of those asked supported the establishment of an English Parliament.

April 2007. ICM. 67% percent of those asked supported the establishment of an English Parliament.

Over two thirds of over four fifths of the populace want an English parliament.

No votes in that then. Not.

[Ashton]

in response to englandism, just because people say they support it doesnt mean people will vote on that line during the general election

on the subject on the speaker, certainly give him the teeth to get answers from ministers when they dodge questions and control parliamentary agenda, but as said, directly elected will create a presidential figure. instead, let the speaker automatically be a member of the opposition parties, and have him in place until the government changes. also there should be a bye-election for the seat when the speaker takes their post.

[David Lindsay]

You're expecting those sorts of voting figures, are you? Well, keep on expecting...

My full point was that the Tories will "get nowhere playing the English card while led by a classic posh Scot, complete with the English public school, Oxbridge degree, Home Counties seat, and marriage into the English baronetage. Cameron has a house in his constituency, but only because he's the MP there. His real homes are in London and on the Isle of Jura. (Three houses and no mortgage at his age, take note.) As I say, classic.

So he simply cannot believe that some state school, non-Oxbrdge son of the manse from the old Fife coalbelt has the effrontery to be Prime Minister instead of him. And Brown knows full well that that is Cameron's feeling. On both sides, it's a Scottish thing."

And you can't answer that.

Of course, the Tories are not actually planning an English Parliament, and even the English votes thing would just be forgotten about if they were in office. Already, they hardly ever mention it. They never have done very much.

Without ever lying outright, the Tories let people assume that they are English Nationalists when they are not, just as they let people assume that they are Eurosceptics when they are not, and moral traditionalists when they are not, and tough on crime when they are not.

But then, the most notable thing about separatist movements from the UK is that cease to be so in anything more than the most rhetorical sense once they get a bit of power, and just settle down into a sort of populism instead. Look at the SNP. Look at Plaid Cymru. Look even at Sinn Fein.

The same thing would happen to any English Nationalist movement. Not, at present, that there is one, certainly not in the form of the Conservative Party.

[Teck]

Gordon Brown genuinely wants to know if you would still like him to hold the 2007 General Election. Honest. No porkies.

Join the queue here - http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Election-year/

.... and uncork the champagne in time for Christmas! Not?

[anne allan]

House of Lords - why could the elected element be 2 representatives for each county? It seems to work very well in the United States as it allows less populated states equal representation e.g Wyoming has 1 representative but 2 senators. In this country it would give rural counties more of a say in the affairs Britain.
We should still keep bishops and other religious leaders to remind us of matters other than politics and economics. And a percentage of hereditaries as they ulitmately owe no allegience to any politcal party and can therefore freely speak their minds.