David Cameron calls for fixed-term parliaments and majority-elected Lords

In a speech to the Carlton Club later today Mr Cameron will discuss constitutional issues.

The Shadow Education Secretary will, according to Tania Branigan, “argue for bringing in fixed-term parliaments, more free votes for MPs, greater independence for parliamentary committees and a majority-elected Lords”.

Mr Cameron yesterday won some admiration from Chris Patten. The Chancellor of Oxford University told The Guardian:

"I wouldn't want to damage anybody's prospects by being too noisy a supporter but I think both David Willetts and David Cameron have the great advantage of being thoughtful and sensible. David Willetts makes comprehensible speeches about the sort of issues that politicians should worry about but can very seldom summon the political energy to get involved in, like the impact of demography on social policy. I suspect that David Cameron will be thought more charismatic as a potential leader, and it may be time to jump a generation and go for somebody much younger. He's an extremely decent, intelligent man, and he's got very good political judgment. It sounds rather a sanctimonious thing to say, but he's a good human being."

Lord Patten was much less sympathetic to David Davis:

"I don't really know him… The Conservative party keeps on electing leaders of the opposition, and it's about time we elected somebody who would be a prime minister. I don't think the Conservative party does itself any favours by talking to itself."

Comments

[Wat Tyler]

Nobody would expect Patten to support DD. As the article notes: "He is, we agree, certainly to the left of Tony Blair, and I wonder how he managed to serve for seven years in Thatcher's government. He is unapologetic."

I must say, as a Westminster outsider, I really do wonder how some of our national politicians actually choose their parties. The difference between Lords Patten and Jenkins (his predessessor among the dreaming spires) was...er, well what exactly?

[James Hellyer]

David Cameron says "When people vote today, they think it hardly makes any difference. To the public, politicians all seem the same. They break their promises."

The problem is that politiciams are elected on party manifestos. Increasing the number of free votes would surely undermine any party's ability to deliver its manifesto and thus feed the problem he complains of - broken promises.

[Ray Davies]

“argue for bringing in fixed-term parliaments, more free votes for MPs, greater independence for parliamentary committees and a majority-elected Lords”.

Apart from free votes for MPs, which as James has highlighted could be problematic, the rest is very sound.

[Frank]

I seem to recall that an elected HOL was our policy before and the MP's would not wear it-voting it down in HOC.

[EU Serf]

The recommendation of a Man whose career highlights include handing Honk Kong to the Chinese and trying to Hand Britain to Brussels is not the best way to win.

[James Hellyer]

Are you saying that the people of Bath had the right idea in 1992, then Eu_Serf?

[Mark O'Brien]

I disagree with the comments James made about free votes. If a political party had MPs who fundamentally agreed with its policies, more free votes should not pose a threat. And if a government no longer used the threat of party expulsion or other harsh disciplinary measures to get its MPs in line, and instead got the rebels into a room and tried to persuade them of their case, again free votes should not be problematic.

I think the people are intelligent enough to understand the difference between politicians who fail to live up to what they say, and a government which tries nobly to achieve something but is prevented from doing so by a few backbench trouble-makers.

[James Hellyer]

"If a political party had MPs who fundamentally agreed with its policies, more free votes should not pose a threat."

The problem being that they don't. Our political parties are all broad based co-alitions. The Conservative party, for example, has starkly differing views in its parliamentary party on issues as diverse as Europe and education.

Free votes could only work if parties were more ideologically focussed and "pure".

"people are intelligent enough to understand the difference between politicians who fail to live up to what they say, and a government which tries nobly to achieve something but is prevented from doing so by a few backbench trouble-makers."

The Major years would say otherwisr.

[Cutting taxes wins elections]

I'm trying to get over the shock of Patten backing a Conservative.

[Simon C]

"I'm trying to get over the shock of Patten backing a Conservative."

Once you've recovered your equilibrium, check out Max Hastings also in yesterday's Guardian:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1535468,00.html

General gist is that he thinks Cameron is too young and Davis is a thug.

Interesting the number of commentators who say nothing about Fox. Either he's still below their radar, or they are trying to ignore him. Either way, I doubt he will go away. Personally, I am trying to find a tie with a fox on for the party conference. The last few years I haven't worn a tie during the day, but I think I might have to this year.

[Edward]

Interesting that Cameron chose not to mention the most important constitutional reform - a solution to the west lothian question

[D&D]

Cameron is not too young,he will only be 4 o 5 years younger than Blair at the next election.
Davis is also increasingly coming across as not so personable, Cameron has definitely demonstrated intelligence and his laedership qualities. If we pick him now we can skewer Labour, who are soon going to be presiding over a self made recession.
One adavntage the Conservatives have always had is that they are seen as best for managing the economy. However it was a worldwide recession which brought us down in 1997, and Labour actually becoming a free market party as opposed to protectionist.
Once people are reminded of the dark days of old Labour, by both recession and the uncharismatic Brown, a telegenic, charismatic intelligent leader in a newly galvanised party is sure to win.

[Malcolm Shykles]

What is the point of a “majority elected Lords”?

The Commons has slid almost completely into the subservience of the Whips.

So many voters rely on Government handouts or work from the Government for their livelihoods that the Labour Party has almost become a permanent fixture.

The Lords has practically been robbed of it’s independence. A strong House could have prevented the War of Terror, sorry ‘on terror’.

The aristocratic or hereditary system served this country well for almost 1,000 years until Blair came along.

The Lords should not become the dumping ground for failed politicians. It needs a mixture – representatives from aristocracy, military, scientists, businessmen etc.

Let them appoint themselves – with no salary and limited expenses.

[Richard Allen]

"Once you've recovered your equilibrium, check out Max Hastings also in yesterday's Guardian:"

Would that be the same Max Hastings who voted Labour in both 1997 and 2001?

[James Hellyer]

"Cameron is not too young,he will only be 4 o 5 years younger than Blair at the next election."

I assume you mean "4 or 5 years younger than Blair was when he BECAME PM."

[James Hellyer]

"What is the point of a “majority elected Lords”?

The Commons has slid almost completely into the subservience of the Whips."

If the second chamber had strict term limits, that would free its inhabitants from the whip system.

If the whips cannot threaten you with sanctions up to deselection, they have no hold over you.

[esbonio]

I have to disagree with the comment that " One adavntage the Conservatives have always had is that they are seen as best for managing the economy."

I grant our correspondent that the Tories may have had a superior reputation at some time in the past (deserved or otherwise) but they lost it during Black Wednesday and even though its effect was delayed it has and arguably still plays a major part in the Tory party's woes.

We could of course also go back further and consider the Three Day Week over which Ted Heath presided.

I think the Tories have the right instinctive approach on the economy but that does not mean they have a monopoly on economic competence. If they did they would not be out of power now and fighting like proverbials in a sack.

[Simon C]

The key to Lords reform is the question of what powers the second chamber should have. Once you have decided what the chamber should do, you can then try and work out the best model to achieve that. Focussing on the composition of the chamber, and not its powers, is putting the cart before the horse.

I would like to see on of our MPs ask Blair this question at PMQs - Should a fully reformed second chamber have more or less power to hold the executive to account than the current one?

[Simon C]

"Interesting that Cameron chose not to mention the most important constitutional reform - a solution to the west lothian question".

The party's current solution: English Bills for English MPs, won't work. We would end up with a Labour majority on the HofC for UK matters & a Conservative one for England, which would prove very divisive if contained in the same chamber.

The best solution is to devolve power in England locally to such a great extent that the Scottish Parliament & Welsh Assembly look like out of date, expensive, centralised talking shops.

[Wat Tyler]

What with Hastings and all those patricians, and Patten and all those SDP types, the number of real Conservatives seems to boil down to...well, let's see, there's me, and...er, well, DD...and umm...

[Malcolm Shykles]

If there was a limit on the number of lawyers in both houses we would be a lot better off!

[Simon C]

"the number of real Conservatives seems to boil down to...well, let's see, there's me, and...er, well, DD...and umm..."

Sorry that you think DD's support has crumbled overnight Wat.

Still, you could always switch to Fox.

"Still, you could always switch to Fox"

It's about time the David Davis for Leader blog defected to a credible candidate!

[Timothy Stroud]

If the Tories want to get back into power nationally, there has to be a shift in thinking and action, towards offering voters in big cities choices that they dont presently have. If the party carries on trying to devise policies which only attract existing Tory voters then the party is sunk. BUT that is not an invitation for religious nuts or multi-culturalists to think they can take over the party.