Devolve power to local government
A constitutional reform package that neglects rebalancing power between the central state and local communities will fail to impress. We need reforms that go beyond the academic anxieties of the Westminster village. The stale and torpid centralisation of power in Whitehall not only excludes the public, it is the fundamental obstacle inhibiting public service improvement and productivity. This is what should drive Labour’s agenda; reforms with a purposeful impact on public service quality. Representative democracy should not be discarded in favour of government by referendum or media whim – but it does need a wholesale revamp to match contemporary concerns in a post-deferential age. The time has come to distribute leadership of public policy across Britain’s communities.
Greater transparency and public involvement could include: annual public meetings as a condition of elected office, national and local; a public right to table propositions before the Commons where a 5% petition threshold is achieved; PCT non-executive board members and police authorities appointed by locally elected representatives; quango appointees coming from all corners of the country, not simply the four London boroughs who provide the majority of these posts at present; and a legal ‘duty to devolve’ placed on government.
Chris Leslie is director of the New Local Government Network
A fully elected House of Lords
British politics is still reeling from the expenses scandal. People are fed up with a cut off and cosseted political class. The House of Lords in its present state reinforces that sense of disconnection. If we are to rebuild trust in political institutions, it is not enough to attempt to fix a broken House of Commons alone, we must also look to the Lords.
Twelve years after our 1997 manifesto, in which we promised to make the Lords more ‘democratic and representative’, it is still undemocratic and unrepresentative. They actively oppose having a popular mandate: in 2007 the Lords opposed election by an increased majority, defying a vote by the Commons.
The prime minister has appointed an unprecedented number of peers to his cabinet. Secretaries of state for two major departments are unable to appear in the Commons. The revising chamber is regularly used to initiate legislation. This must change, but given the Lords’ past obstinacy, there is no chance of reforming their house in the final year of this parliament.
Democracy means that in the end the power lies with the people – a referendum at the next election would give them a chance to end a century of being promised a more democratic upper house but not getting it.
Fiona Mactaggart is MP for Slough
Primaries to select Labour candidates
Traditional forms of democratic engagement are in steady decline. Turnout in elections and party membership have both fallen dramatically in recent years while there has been growth in single-issue movements and the politics of protest. A new approach is needed to revive enthusiasm for our democratic institutions.
Introducing open primaries would be one way to revive the social contract between local communities and the politicians who represent them, as well as ensuring that those who stand for public office come from a wider pool. Care must be taken to ensure that the important role played by Labour party members in democratically choosing their candidates is not lost, but nor should the emaciated local parties in some areas be able to claim legitimacy where it has been lost. Since the Labour party has no fixed method for choosing its London mayoral candidate, open primaries would be an exciting way of reviving interest in the party and its values in London. Open primaries could also be piloted in areas where Labour party membership has fallen to unacceptable levels.
Care must be taken to ensure that the rules help avoid some of the pitfalls that opponents often cite. But a well-designed system can increase democratic legitimacy, expand the pool of candidates who seek elected office and help re-engage local voters.
Will Straw is a fellow at the Center for American Progress. He writes in a personal capacity
Directly elected mayors
The need for constitutional reform does not end in parliament. We need to reform local government, too. More city mayors would be a good start. Participation in local government is limited, mainly because local councils have too few powers. In many cities, local election turnout is often as low as 25%. And in this recession, it is clear that cities don’t have the powers they need to respond.
Our biggest cities need directly elected mayors, with real tax and spend powers. Big city mayors would be highly visible, directly accountable and responsible for taking tough decisions. They would re-engage disaffected local voters and trigger higher turnouts. And they would help their city respond to economic change.
Labour did the right thing in 2000, installing the mayor of London. But since then, we’ve had an underwhelming batch of small-scale mayors with no real powers. If mayors are good enough for London, why not Manchester or Birmingham?
The Tories say they will introduce mayors in England’s 12 biggest cities outside London. The next Labour manifesto should go further: commit to big city mayors across England, and give them new financial powers over transport, housing and employment.
Dermot Finch is director of the Centre for Cities
A referendum on electoral reform
In 1997 Labour promised to set up a cross-party commission to devise a new voting system for the House of Commons and to put its proposal to the British people in a referendum. The first part happened (Jenkins) but the second never did. Well, better late than never.
First-past-the-post may have made sense when the two main parties enjoyed the support of over 90% of voters. It is ill-equipped for our more fragmented, pluralist 21st century democracy where partisan allegiances are weaker and voters expect more choice.
John Smith acknowledged that any change to how we elect MPs should be decided by the people. We can hold a referendum on the same day as the next general election which should ensure a reasonable turnout so that the result (whichever way it goes) reflects the true will of the people.
The Jenkins commission proposed AV-plus for the House of Commons which gives more voter choice and makes more votes count, but is not pure PR. It is a unique system devised to suit this country. I think it would be a much better system than we have now – but let’s let the people decide.
Stephen Twigg is chair of Progress
State funding of political parties
For parties to re-establish their place in the fabric of modern civil society requires them to be rethought as organisations. Party funding is important in this. We need a funding system which is fair, transparent and sufficient for parties to engage. We must channel money away from negative national campaigning and into grassroots engagement. But this means the Conservatives supporting reform at a time when they are benefiting from a huge spending gap, and it means Labour has to grasp the nettle on union funding.
Every trade unionist must be clearly informed that they are being opted in to making a donation to the chosen party of their union (and have the easy option of opting out), and the money collected must be simply transferred to the party and not conditional on policy demands made by trade union general secretaries (witness Unison’s Dave Prentise last month). Any donation by a union over and above the individual funds transparently collected should be subject to the same donations cap applying to everyone.
In the wake of the MPs’ expenses scandal it is now even harder to persuade the public to back greater state funding, but it could be done as part of a genuinely bold package of democratic reform.
Matthew Taylor is chief executive of the RSA and writes in a personal capacity
Reform of Parliament
The political crisis triggered by the MPs’ expenses scandal has provoked wide-ranging debate about how politics should be reformed. But what is the nature of the crisis? First, there is a crisis of confidence in politicians, who the public believes act out of party and self-interest and not the public interest. To counter this view, parliament needs to be reformed so that there is more space for MPs to act in the public interest and where there is less scope for petty political adversarialism.
Measures should include giving MPs greater control over the parliamentary agenda to allow them to debate and vote on matters they choose, stronger and more independent select committees, specialist and permanent bill committees and, crucially, the number of ministers shoud be reduced.
Second, this is a crisis of accountability. The public are deeply frustrated about their inability to hold MPs to account or influence what goes on inside parliament. A public petitions committee should be established which would enable the public to shape the agenda of parliament from the outside. A citizens’ chamber should be created to consider specific issues and report back to parliament, and there should be a recall power to remove MPs who have acted unethically.
Guy Lodge is associate director at the IPPR
To sign up to the campaign click here