Clarke proposes power shift to MPs and online voters

David Cameron and Ken Clarke held a joint press conference this morning to present the latest recommendations of the Democracy Taskforce.   Throughout the summer there will be a number of these reports and it will then be for the shadow cabinet to decide which recommendations are embraced.

The principal recommendations are summarised in the box on the right.

Perhaps the headline-grabbing idea was the suggestion that voters will be able to petition Parliament to hold debates on topics of popular concern.  At the press conference David Cameron said that such petitions could connect Simon de Montfort's Parliament with the MySpace generation:

"I would like to see a system whereby, if enough people sign an online petition in favour of a particular motion, then a debate is held in Parliament, followed by a vote – so that the public know what their elected representatives actually think about the issues that matter to them."

Ken Clarke, responding to a question from Gary Gibbon that these petitions could all be orchestrated by tabloid newspapers, said that there would be filters from a 'Legislative Business Committee'.  Parliament, he said, should not be debating whether West Ham should have points deducted.  That'll be a relief to Iain Dale.

Editor's comment: "This appears to be an excellent report. The emphasis on more powers for select committees - with MPs choosing their chairman freely by secret ballot - will tilt the power away from the executive to parliament.  The thrust of Ken Clarke's report would see MPs rather than the Government of the day having more power to choose which issues are debated.  The former Chancellor said that the Government's stranglehold on the timetabling of debates meant that issues were often presented as a fait accompli.  He highlighted the Iraq war debate and the timetabling of the vote for the eve of the invasion.

David Cameron hoped that select committees - with extra powers - would become a new career path for MPs.  The brightest and best, he said, would no longer see frontbench duties as superior to becoming powerful scrutineers of the executive.  The petition idea was a very interesting one and there is, of course, nothing to stop David Cameron introducing something similar on conservatives.com while in Opposition.  If the Conservative Party is to be in the vanguard of the internet revolution it should be building online communities now.  If I was head of internet strategy at CCHQ I'd be inviting people to petition for policy issues to be addressed and holding indicative (and sometimes binding) votes on policy group recommendations."

***
This post summarises other recommendations of Ken Clarke's Democracy Taskforce.

Comments

[TomTom]

Does the bit about slanging matches mean Osborne will cease from stunts like the one with thr graphologist ? We can have sensible debate instead ?

[Umbrella man]

Excellent recommendations. Let's hope we can all put the grammargate row behind us now.

[richard]

All this just goes to show what a mistake the party made in not choosing Kenneth Clarke as its leader, instead of Dave - and IDS and Hage.

[malcolm]

This seems a brave if somewhat risky set of proposals. If enacted they will make the executive more accountable to the legislature which is great whilst we are in opposition but will make things tougher when in government. Overall though, I think these ideas are good and very necessary after watching a government bypass Parliament for so long. It will be interesting to see what the reaction is amongst the media and the public at large.

[chrisblore]

Some good proposals, particularly the one about Europe. However, I'm pretty sure that the petitions will be yet another Cameron gimmick and won't ever make any impact, rather like the No. 10 petitions website where Tony just rebuffs anything he receives.

Furthermore, the government of the day receives a majority and, in a parliamentary democracy such as our own, is the director of legislative business. I can see where Clarke is coming from but there need to be significant safeguards to ensure that opposition MPs are not able to derail the government's legislative programme.

[Andrew Woodman]

All of those seem pretty sensible suggestions (Did the last one really come from Ken?). I wonder how many Gordon Brown will cherry pick?

[Jake]

All just an exercise in studiously ignoring the elephant in the room

ie there is no national parliament for England and there should be .

Only England now has the status of being ruled directly by the British government and with no specifically English institutions . All the institutions are British not English . We are , in effect , occupied by the British state and government which includes members of the British parliament who have no democratic responsibility for or to England .
This is profoundly injust and undemocratic and is the key reason for the vast malaise at the heart English politics .

Clarke and Cameron know this full well and they think that by prattling on with a sticking plaster aproach to the constitution they can get away with being seen to be
"doing something" while avoiding having to do anything very much .

Face reality , abolish the self denying ordinance and declare for an English Parliament .
Now THAT will spark some interest .

[Henry Cook]

This is the whole problem with coming up with policies.... Gordon Brown can just take the one's he likes, and nobody would notice/care. Great start to the process though. I wonder if the critics from all sides will drop the 'no substance' line, after a few of the groups have reported. I hope so.

[Andrew Smith]

Letting Parliament decide what gets agreed in Europe (I assume this refers to the EU), is not new. Parliament has always had the power to call a Prime Minister to account and to resolve as it choses. What we have lacked from all sides of the HoC is any apetite from the MPs to fulfill their duty. One only has to reflect on the supine attitude the HoC has taken to the Government's refusal to discuss its intentions over the Merkel Constitution.

Creating yet another career path for members of the political class hardly seems a democratising step and fiddling again with the method of voting is crass in the wake of clear abuses brought about by the postal voting changes.

Why stop at allowing the public to nominate subjects for debate in the HoC. Why not have local referenda whenever voters want it and why no referendum on leaving the EU?

By the way, how did Dave get Ken to have a hair cut for the press conference?

[Michael Hewlett]

Great to see Ken Clarke back in the spotlight doing what he does best, namely bringing common sense to public debate. Praise should go to Cameron for utilising Ken's wide ranging background. Was the reason why so many commentators were pitching for a Clarke/Cameron ticket during the leadership election.

[Denis Cooper]

I'm holding myself back from using bad language here ...

Democracy means "government by the people"; in a "representative democracy" the people choose representatives to act on their behalf, because for reasons of numbers and/or distance and/or time it isn't practicable for each individual to act directly himself on all matters and all occasions.

The failure of our system stems from the way we choose people to act as our representatives, which results in the election of people who are untrustworthy, unpatriotic, self-seeking liars.

So while MPs recovering power from the executive may be a good thing in itself, it's little more than a minor redistribution of power within an unrepresentative, increasingly pan-European, increasingly pan-global, and increasingly corrupt, oligarchy - when what is needed is a return of power to the people, the "demos".

[David Belchamber]

What a welcome relief to see some substance emerging at last (they don't get much more substantial than Ken C!).
Some queries:
(i) "more serious examination of policy in committees" - good idea and, as the editor suggests, this could provide a career path other than the front bench. What we need though is a better mix of backgrounds in the HoD; too many lawyers and not enough people who have actually run big operations (well).
(ii) "no deals to be made in Europe without prior explanation in UK Parliament" - does this imply automatic acceptance, though?
(iii) - what about the West Lothian question?
(iv) - what about the suggested Civil Service Act?
(v) - what about total independence for the Office for National Statistics?
(vi) - what about severely curtailing the powers of spin doctors i.e. government propagandists?

I particularly applaud "tougher scrutiny of govt waste" and suggest that the tories promise at this stage an independent inquiry into the Treasury's wastefulness over the last 10 years.

[realcon]

If this means the public would get a vote on whether to remain in the EU then UKIP would fold.

However, the chances of this happening are slim to zero.

[Chris]

David Belchamber,
I'm not sure if iii-iv have already been outlined in previous speeches, or whether the "leak" a few days ago was just wrong. Hopefully the editor can fill us in on that.

The West Lothian question has been addressed on several ocassions though. English votes on english legislation seems a sure thing after the amount of times it's been heralded by DC.

[Graham Checker]

I find it interesting that Ken "I don't agree with Referendums" Clarke, with his strong track record of opposing any form of direct democracy, has had a Damascan conversion to the cause.

Does he really want to lay bare all the EU policies in the HoC? Ken Clarke?!

Maybe he does. But I'm not holding my breath.

Alas, I'm not convinced Clarke (or Cameron) would actually deliver on these; even if they could.

God, I'm getting cynical in my old age.

[Chris]

realcon,
The issue is whether we would be able to join the EEC again via EFTA after withdrawing. I'm not at all keen on Europe, but leaving without a gurantee of being able to get back into the free trade grouping would have serious repurcussions. Sadly we won't be in a position to have talks like this until we are in government (Not that I feel DC would do that).

[Adrian Owens]

At a first glance, these look like good proposals. I'll read the full report.

The party has set up websites to aid submissions by interested parties to the policy review groups. These have been of varying quality and have attracted varying interest.

I think though, that the grassroots will want to have a greater say when critiquing policy proposals from these groups and I hope the party sets up high-profile websites that allow robust debate on proposals and policy refinement before the shadow cabinet are asked to endorse them.

[Denis Cooper]

What low expectations some people have!

[Alex Swanson]

All this just goes to show what a mistake the party made in not choosing Kenneth Clarke as its leader

At the risk of sounding cynical, I don't believe for a second that if Clarke had become PM he would have implemented a single one of these ideas, or indeed been any better than Blair.

My main memory of the Major govt is of Clarke giving interviews in which his arrogance and clear utter contempt for popular opinion would lose us more votes in five minutes than I had gained in six months' campaigning.

You will notice that there is still no effective curb on the power of the executive. If the PM of the day really wants to push through a law, there is nothing the ordinary citizen can do, regardless of the injustice involved.

It is a characteristic of the Left that, when powerless, they shout for the powerless to have more rights, but that once in a position to grant them, they claim that there is no longer a problem. I remain to be persuaded that Clarke or Cameron is any different.

[Edward]

Yes, well done to both Clarke and Cameron in this. This is all good stuff which ought to help reinvigorate Parliament under the next Conservative administration.

[Traditional Tory]

"I would like to see a system whereby, if enough people sign an online petition in favour of a particular motion, then a debate is held in Parliament, followed by a vote"

Sounds like an obvious charter for cranks and timewasters

Yet another headline-grabbing (they hope) gimmick.

[James Morris]

I agree with the Editor's suggestion that we should be experimenting with petitions as part of the policy review process that the party is currently conducting. We need find a mechanism by which party and non-party members can debate and influence the ideas coming out of the policy groups. Petitions could be a mechanism for doing this.

[Editor]

Thanks James - I'm glad for your support!

[Patsy Sergeant]

If these recommendations are put into action, I think they would be the best defence against usage of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act! Lets hope they are adopted.

[James Morris]

Yes, Tim, why doesn't the party ask for suggestions from the public for the sort of proposals the party should be considering. If the proposals command sufficient public support via the mechanism of an on-line petition (not sure what the threshold should be?)then the party would then explore the feasibility of the idea, create proposals which could then be deliberated upon using the on-line community created by the original petition, leading perhaps to an indicative vote.

[Traditional Tory]

proposals which could then be deliberated upon using the on-line community created by the original petition

Er...what about all the people who do not care to be on line, leave IT at work, or who have vener had anything to do with it whatsoever?

Rather an uninclusive approach isn't it?

[CDM]

Most of those recommendations seem sensible, although I'd prefer it if Parliament got a binding vote on EU treaties rather than simply receiving an "explanation".

[gingeral]

Good work by Clarke, now he has some free time does anyone agree with me that it might be an idea for Cameron to bring him into his shadow cabinet in the forthcoming reshuffle? Seems to me that we need a few big beasts on the front bench, and Clarke, whilst I don't always agree with him, is still effortlessly impressive. Not sure what job he'd be best at (or indeed which jobs if any he would take), but he should certainly be on the team somewhere.

[farnboro]

I am interested to see that the House of Commons has a European Affairs Select Committee (whoever made this schoolboy howler wants kicking very hard), and that the House's record of examining EU legislation is not good.

Mr Clarke may have missed the work of the European Scrutiny Committee, which sifts every EU document deposited in Parliament, examines the Government's position on each of them, presses for further information if necesssary and decides which ones are of sufficient legal and political importance for a debate in a European Standing Committee or on the floor of the House.

Meetings of the Committee with Government ministers and other witnesses are invariably held in public.

[farnboro]

Patsy Sergeant, the best defences against orders under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill are the Commons and Lords Committees established to examine the Government's proposals for regulatory reform orders.

Both Committees have been highly critical of many Government regulatory reform orders, and have demanded (and secured) substantial revisions in several orders under the 2001 Act: they have even thrown orders out if they considered that they were more suitable for primary legislation.

[Toque]

Whatever happened to answering the West Lothian Question?

I sense the heavy hand of Conservative Central Office on the shoulder of the Democracy Task Force.

I always thought that it would be daft for the Tories to reveal their hand before Brown did but it's a shame that the Task Force seems to be a puppet of David Cameron's Office. Looking on the bright side at least by delaying their findings on 'English Votes' Brown won't be able to retaliate by doing something stupid.

But it's hard to take these recommendations at face value when we're not sure what kind of parliament we are talking about. Does this apply to just the federal parliament or to the parliament within a parliament - the English Grand Committee - as well?

[Michael Huntsman]

Siren calls again to recall Clarke to the front bench.

Clarke as head of the DTF is one thing: he is a bright chap who knows his way round the intricacies, nuances and mechanics of Parliament and has some sensible and thoughtful proposals to make about Parliament.

Clarke as a member of the Shadow Cabinet is quite another thing. His slavish enthusiasm for any of the works of the EU would inevitably create conflict with the rest of the party which cares not a jot for such things. There would always be the suspicion that any weakness on Cameron's part about standing up to The EU had been in part occasioned by the influence in cabinet of Clarke and other pro-EU Tories who had suddenly acquired an effective champion in the seat of power.

He would be seen as the cause of the inevitable divisiveness that would be thereby caused which would bring in its wake the sort of internecine warfare that destroyed the tories in the 90s.

Remember also that the sight of his cherubic face on the TV would at once remind an electorate of the Major years, the stench of which he bears with him at all times. Far better to allow that awful period of our history to be effaced from the public's consciousness completely.

And who really wants to make Europhilia respectable again?

[peter watson]

So if we get a petition to bring back capital punishment and make treason a crime again and petition to deport all illegal immigrants the government will listen to us?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH

[Soothsayer]

I really like Clarke. A super guy, and wonderful on the topic of jazz.
The feet of clay are his membership of the elected ruling elite class. So will he vote for Christmas? Not likely.
Any serious appraiser of the commons would first recommend a house of 320 members, any more is wasteful expense. The American house of representatives is smaller than the overstuffed commons. Secret eletronic voting should be introduced in the commons. MPs work, expense claims, and extra parliamentry activities should be overseen by a monitoring organisation reporting to a judicial group, possibly in the lords, on a monthly basis. Who in this silly self aggrandising organisation really wants any reform?

[farnboro]

Soothsayer: are tyou seriously suggesting that MPs submit their work and expenses to scrutiny by the Lords?

The USA is of course a proper federal system, which explains why its national legislature can be so comparatively small: many decisions taken at state level or below. Is that something which your "serious appraisal" leads you to advocate for the UK?

[Tapestry]

what can be done to stop manipulation of media by government as alleged by Iain Dale today http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2007/06/exclusive-how-spinning-gordon-played.html#links

could all communication from government to news media be arranged through a parliamentary supervisory conduit? That way no threats can be made and secret deals done. News could be released to all channels simultaneously on a non-favours-to-be-repaid basis.

The media has usurped much of parliament's power under Blair. Gordon Brown obviously intends to carry on where Blair left off, but maybe manipulating even more than Blair. Something should be done to stop him.

He's managed to crawl into the office without any process of public approval. He should not now be allowed to threaten and manipulate the media to do his bidding for him. What can be done to take control of Brown's manipulating, threatening and cheating instincts?

[richard]

Kenneth Clarke was on BBC News 24 talking about the proposals. How good it was to hear someone with experience, knowledge and common sense. And living on this planet. He towers over anybody else on the Government and Opposition benches. If only he was Leader knocking Gordo all round Westminster. What odds would Ladbroke's give on the double whammy - a new Olympic logo and a new Tory leader by the end of the year? If Gordo calls an election in October and wins (he may do the first and will certainly do the second) then for heaven's sake let's get Clarke in as a proper leader.

[Chris]

Soothsayer,
As pointed out above, the US is a federal country and a lot of policy is devolved to states.

Montana is a state with just under 1 million residents (1/60th of the UK population) and it has a state legislature of 100 (So imagine 6000 guys for a UK parliament), it only ever meets on odd numbered years for 90 day periods (UK parliament meets every year for around 100 days). Montana in effect ends up with 914% more politicians who do less work than ours do...

I know it's an extreme case, but it's still an interesting comparison. Decreasing the number of people in the commons would make the constituencies so large that we might as well have PR, make it even harder for third parties to try and establish themselves and would make the parties even less representative, as only the political families would ever be elected.

[Chris]

Soothsayer,
As pointed out above, the US is a federal country and a lot of policy is devolved to states.

Montana is a state with just under 1 million residents (1/60th of the UK population) and it has a state legislature of 100 (So imagine 6000 guys for a UK parliament), it only ever meets on odd numbered years for 90 day periods (UK parliament meets every year for around 100 days). Montana in effect ends up with 914% more politicians who do less work than ours do...

I know it's an extreme case, but it's still an interesting comparison. Decreasing the number of people in the commons would make the constituencies so large that we might as well have PR, make it even harder for third parties to try and establish themselves and would make the parties even less representative, as only the political families would ever be elected.

[Jake]

Soothsayer , you appear to be obliquley endorsing a federal UK with a British parliament of 320 members
and national parliaments .

I hope you are including an English national parliament here .
It is logical , fair and sensible .
( It would even do the Conservatives a power of good electorally , not that that should be reason to support it )

I think that a fedral British parliament of about 250-320 members and country pariliaments for the component nations of the UK would meet with majority approval from all over the UK .

[Denis Cooper]

CDM @ 15:21 - "I'd prefer it if Parliament got a binding vote on EU treaties rather than simply receiving an "explanation"." Well, of course they do having binding votes on the Bills to ratify the treaties, without which they have no effect in British law - they would remain as external agreements made by government ministers using the Royal Prerogative, and without internal legal effect. But that is after the treaty has been negotiated and agreed, and it would be difficult for Parliament to then accept some articles of a treaty but reject others because that would affect all the counter-parties to the treaty and so it would have to be re-negotiated. This is one reason why the gradual move to "government by international treaty" is so destructive of national democracy - unlike the normal process of legislation, when some sections of a government Bill may be passed untouched while others are amended or removed altogether, in the case of an EU treaty the government negotiates and agrees it, and our elected representatives must then accept or reject it in its entirety. MPs could in principle insist on inserting a reservation, asserting the continuing and undiminished right of the House to legislate contrary to some provision of the treaty if it proved unsatisfactory in practice. And of course it is also open to MPs to pass a motion warning the government that if it agreed to X during negotiations then the House would refuse to pass the Bill to ratify the treaty. Alternatively, that the House would not pass the Bill to ratify the treaty until it had been approved by the people in a national referendum. They could pass either or both of those motions now, before the EU summit on June 21/22, without any help from Kenneth Clarke's pretend "Democracy Taskforce". But they will be very reluctant to do any of those things, because most of them fear their party whips much more than they fear their constituents, and they care much more about their own futures than they care about the future of the country and its Parliamentary democracy. The central problem is how to make MPs more afraid of the people, compelling them to look beyond their own narrow personal interests, and Kenneth Clarke has nothing whatsoever to offer in that regard.

[Ash Faulkner]

Very refreshing, I agree with the ideas. I have to say though, having watched the video (and this isn't me being anti-Cameron, I'm generally pro), his speaking sounds very rehearsed - probably because it is. He doesn't speak with much passion, I'd like to see him work on that. Still, what he's saying is good, so I'm satisfied with the Democracy Taskforce.

[Alex Swanson]

Any serious appraiser of the commons would first recommend a house of 320 members, any more is wasteful expense. The American house of representatives is smaller than the overstuffed commons.

The Americans have a federal system; much of the work which is done by Parliament is done by state governments. Reducing the number of MPs would be very bad; it would increase the number of voters per MP and hence the distance between them; it would reduce the possibility of having MPs with particular experiences and skills (a situation which in some areas is bad enough at the moment, God knows); it would reduce the number of mavericks (again only too few as it is)

Secret eletronic voting should be introduced in the commons.

Secret voting means that constituents do not know how their MP has decided on issues that matter to them and hence would be unable to render a meaningful verdict at the next election. And why "electronic"? Electronic voting has no place in a proper democracy, and I speak with thirty years' experience as a political activist and twenty as an IT professional.

[Chris]

Alex Swanson, I agree with you that constituents ought to know how their MP has voted, but you have to appreciate how secret voting could improve democracy, as the whips would be forever powerless, meaning that true compromise agreements would have to be sought between the waring factions of a party.

I wouldn't see any issue with introducing non-secret electronic voting if we were starting from scratch... but we're not. Electronic voting in the commons would be a break from tradition, and the time saved would hardly make it worthwhile. Only real downside I can see is that it could trivialise the voting process, and the few minutes queuing to go into the lobby could just be long enough for someone to change their mind.

[Matt Wright]

Some good proposals from Clarke,

Matt

[Dave Wilson]

Dave was just reading a script - not much conviction came over. Ken was relaxed, but bull is his forte - "more power to Parliament"? - come off it, you want no power for the UK Parliament.

[Tapestry]

Ken Clarke advocates brilliantly as you would expect more power for Parliament, now that it has little relevance and most laws are made elsewhere.

All part of the window dressing to hide the truth that Westminster's a museum, an institution that died a fair while ago, but still the corpse gets dragged around so the relatives don't get upset.

It's all theatre. I nearly believed it. I wanted to believe it.

But Ken Clarke's done more than anyone else to kill Parliament, designing the legislation that ushered in the Treaty Of Rome in 1972/3 and banging the EU drum ever since. Can I really believe he genuinely wants the corpse to breathe again?

In fact no. He wants to create a political big brother with lots of petitions, question times doubled up and lots of select committee work going on - lots of things for the mendia to focus on but none of it will actually do anything. It's all a sham. Sorry.

[Dave J]

"As pointed out above, the US is a federal country and a lot of policy is devolved to states."

This may sound like nitpicking, but it's actually everything to understanding federalism here in the US: "devolved" is the wrong word, because devolved implies power handed down from above, from central authority. The situation is precisely the opposite. The states in the US are the general repositories of sovereignty: they can do anything they are not forbidden from doing (either by valid federal law or by their own state constitutions), while it is the federal government that has limited, enumerated powers handed UP to it. One must find a grant of authority in the federal constitution for the federal government to be able to do anything; not so the states.