In an attempt to grab the headlines, and let’s face it he’s been quite successful, Nick Clegg has pronounced that we should reform our entire constitution and political system in the next 100 days. Fixed term Parliaments in three weeks, a referendum on electoral reform in four, and an elected Senate to replace the House of Lords in week six.
I welcome the new enthusiasm to remake our politics out of the ashes of the last few weeks. I agree with Gordon Brown when he says it must be the end of the Gentleman’s Club at Westminster. I couldn’t agree more that we need a complete overhaul on expenses and allowances, the end of Parliament regulating itself and a system in which Parliament visibly turns outwards, serving the public and not itself. But I am afraid that the prescription the Lib Dem leader suggests would make things worse not better. Top-down, imposed solutions, risk looking like the House of Commons bouncing the country into reforms that will set the path for the next 100 years, in 100 days, simply in order to assuage our guilt for turning a blind eye to an expenses system that is completely indefensible.
I would like to propose an alternative route. I agree with Nick that we can’t troop off on our summer holidays without dealing with the primary issue – expenses. All receipts must have been published and the independent committee reviewing all claims must have made a judgement on each MP before anyone can consider heading for the beach. But historic reforms of our institutions and constitution must be made over a slightly longer time frame in order to allow for the following:
Firstly, a shared sense of what the question is we are trying to answer. Everyone is dusting off their personal ‘hobby horse’ reform issues whether electoral reform or fixed terms, but they are putting the cart before the hobby horse. I believe we have to start by asking ‘what kind of society are we trying to create and what political system will support that?’
Secondly, we need to include in our discussions a debate about what kind of MPs people want and what they want them to do. It would definitely be cheaper if all MPs lived in London and visited their constituencies once a month for the day to cut a few ribbons and attend the village fayre. It is more expensive to have active constituency MPs, who genuinely live in two places, are connected to their communities, and travel backwards and forwards. Similarly, fewer MPs might cost less in salaries but would it improve democracy? I have over 30 towns and villages with 70,000 electors in Don Valley. If MPs had bigger constituencies would their office costs need to rise to meet the increased demand for case work and how accessible would they be?
Thirdly, we have to allow the public to have a genuine say in this debate and not just in individual, take it or leave it, referenda. We got into this mess by forgetting that we serve the public. We won’t get out of it by doing the same thing again. Where do the public get to genuinely input in Nick Clegg’s timeline?
Finally, we owe it to the public to attempt to reach cross-Party consensus. There will nothing more likely to turn the public off further than a Party political fight about this.
Now is time for actions and the public won’t put up with a lengthy period of navel gazing but Nick Clegg is putting headline grabbing the week before an election, ahead of the national interest. What we need is cross-Party mechanism to consider these issues – with the full and active engagement of the public – which would come forward with proposals ahead of the next general election.
Trying to rewrite the constitution in 100 days looks shoddy and opportunistic. This kind of short-term expediency would do a disservice to the generations to come who will inherit our legacy.
Turn the house of Lords into a PR Senate, create a parliament for every English region, have closed primaries, make every school and hospital democratic, strengthen local government powers, make every city authority have a directly elected mayor, create a constitution… and dare I say it, destroy the monarchy.
In the interest of no navel gazing, and real public engagement, how much of this Commons Resolution would Caroline Flint sign up for?
“For the Better Ordering of Our Constitutional Affairs
Noting widespread and rising dissatisfactions with the great centralisation of public business, with the declining engagement of citizens in our public affairs and with trends of change in political accountability, this House resolves:
that Mr Speaker be charged with convening a conference of such persons as he shall deem appropriate to prepare a range of possible reforms to diminish these evils to the full extent that reducing the evil may prove practicable, to report within one year;
(To get substantial political reform moving.)
that in the conference convened by Mr. Speaker, leaders and spokesmen of political parties may have voice, but not vote;
(To prevent the parties blocking consideration of reforms they fear.)
that six months after the conference convened by Mr. Speaker has reported, an assembly of 650 citizens chosen at random from the electoral registers shall be convened to debate and consider the reforms proposed by the conference, and in a period no longer than three months recommend to this House which of these reforms should be enacted;
(To provide citizen input to the reforms, and to build wider momentum and pressure for reform.)
that within three months of receiving the recommendations of the citizens’ assembly, this House shall vote on whether or not to enact each recommendation received.”
(To prevent party leaders kicking into the long grass reforms which citizens see we need.)
I welcome Caroline’s small but sympathetic attempt to analyse the idea of constitutional reform. In politics constitutions are the rule, rather than the exception. The nations of Israel and New Zealand, I am led to believe share the same fate as Great Britain. Neither have a single document in the way of a constitution. No coincidence that historically they have they have both enjoyed British influence.
Constitutions do several things.
1. Lay downs the rules under which government operates – It clear that recent MP’s expenses fiasco, has shown that politicians when making their own rules, they are conditioned to breaking them, to their own advantage.
2. They can lay down the basic rights and responsibilities of citizens – For example the right for citizens to opt for a referendum and the responsibility for this New Labour Government not to allow them one.
3. They can reinvigour a cultural ETHOS for a new nation rejecting ideals identified with a previous order – A breakaway from Third Way ideology and promoting the interests of the small political elite given the task of writing a manifesto and formulating ideas for a Bill of Rights and a Constitution (Locke) taking such ideas from Labour Party Members and imposing them as their own.
But how and why are constitutions framed Caroline?
A new nation emerging from colonial rule? No
Dislocation due to war, listening and learning from past errors and mistakes. No, may imply to Iraq and Germany but sadly not Britain. Labour would be wise to learn from its own mistakes from winning conflicts within its own prty hierarchy
Finally, Gordon Brown’s real rationale, political instability and how do we deflect MP’s wrongdoing. I know says Gordon or rather Ed. We will bring in fresh rules. Its the perfect opportunity. Blame the Monarchy, Church of England and of course the electoral system for MP’s keeping their noses in the gravy train.
You speak about an alternative route, you are right to suggest independent scrutiny, however.
“All receipts must have been published and the independent committee reviewing all claims must have made a judgment on each MP before anyone can consider heading for the beach”
I would assume Caroline that from these peculiar quote, this is the reason, as reported in the recent front page article of the Doncaster Free Press, that you are not releasing your expenses on your website for public scrutiny…or issue them to Labour Party members in your constituency, contrary to objection from the electorate. Playing for time may be the wrong decision for any sitting MP to take.
A number of sitting MP’s have been victim to boundary changes. This can make some constituencies more marginal or more safer than others…It would be interesting to note what bracket some sitting MP’s fit into.
Nick Clegg favours quick reform because FPTP is unfair to smaller parties. The recent poles suggest Labour is dropping below the Liberals. PR would no doubt suit Gordon Brown as it is clear he will lose the General Election with FPTP.
FPTP allows the voters to quickly and promptly dismiss failing governments with failing policies…Academies come to mind. It would benefit the Tories due to the strong support in the country for them. Disadvantages are that Governments can be deemed as being to strong. This wont effect the present Labour Government as they are deemed to be weak.
I would like to conclude by kindly helping you in your quest to be reselected sorry elected. Please refer to patterns of voting, particularly the four models.
The rest of the article indicates that there is panic among the Labour ranks. You are also right to suggest there are a number of towns and villages in your constituency, sadly the majority are not Labour, thanks to a failed Mayoral System that you have so often championed, failing local Government, Children Services, large financial projects and lots lots more.
You are right that the public will have a say in any debate…the means to an end.
Please feel free to comment