What is really going wrong requires the way the political parties work and present themselves to change thoroughly. That’s nothing (or at least almost nothing) to do with the formal constitution.

The reaction of some to this years Liberal Democrats conference – that it was a bad thing because it wasn’t some rally in which we all cheered on the Leader and some Five Year Plan he was putting forward – indicates the real lessons just have not been learnt. Changing the UK constitution while carrying on with this model of political party, a cross between Leninism and MBAism, means we won’t have solved the problem, and when it gets worse, these constitutional reforms, which are valuable in their own right, will probably be blamed for it.

Timothy Garton Ash (Back to the same old Ukania, with a muddle in place of
the constitution, 15 October) notes with approval proposals
for an assembly of randomly selected citizens to design constitutional
reforms.

I write this from experience. When I was Leader of the Opposition in the
London Borough of Lewisham, I saw just this form of trickery used by the
majority Labour Party to gain the form of local governance they wanted.
So many people since have said to me “Now I see what you meant, I wish I
had voted against it”.

I mean what I say. The Citizens’ Jury and the Referendum are both tools capable of a great deal of misuse when manipulated by those using them with control of the agenda and the aim of getting the answer they first thought of.

However, we won’t get that Bill without the support of MPs. If the current lot won’t, then we must elect some who will.

Absolutely. This is the last chance saloon as far as the current Parliament is concerned. Where we certainly do agree is that if this action is not taken now then we really do need encourage as many people as possible to vote for reformist candidates in the election. Believe you me, there are a lot of things going on at the moment designed to encourage that. But I am optimistic that there is a considerable group of current MPs who see the need for reform, if even just from the perspective of enlightened self interest. The test is whether they constitute a majority, or at least a plurality (with a bunch of other MPs twisting whichever way the wind seems to be turning).

“It would clearly be ludicrous to never legislate for a reform on the basis that the next Parliament might repeal it; we’d never get anything done that way.”

That is very fair comment!

“The electoral system is too deeply flawed to be relied on to be able to deliver a reformist government by itself. That’s why we need other initiatives such as the Citizens Convention Bill.”

However, we won’t get that Bill without the support of MPs. If the current lot won’t, then we must elect some who will.

I don’t accept for one minute that this proposal is undemocratic. There is nothing to stop the next government from repealing this legislation, just as it is able to repeal any other legislation. It would clearly be ludicrous to never legislate for a reform on the basis that the next Parliament might repeal it; we’d never get anything done that way.

What the bill would go however is get a process started, which could continue regardless of which party goes on to form the next government. It would force any party opposed to this process to come out, say so and fight an election on that platform. Any party which did so, rightly in my view, would be regarded by the public as a defender of the status quo and the sorry mess we currently find ourselves in. My guess is that no party would wish to be portrayed in that way.

It would of course be up to the next Parliament to decide which of the convention’s proposals it would accept and which proposals it would reject – again, their hands are not being tied in any way.

Clearly the more pro-reform MPs that get elected the better and this bill is not a panacaea. But because of the electoral system, not all that many people will have a chance to elect a pro-reform MP at the next election. The electoral system is too deeply flawed to be relied on to be able to deliver a reformist government by itself. That’s why we need other initiatives such as the Citizens Convention Bill.

I’d love to go back to one of my old companies and tell the staff (especially the sales force) that all their expense claims for the last five years were to be re-examined under completely new and arbitrary rules and they would have to pay back whatever we saw fit.

Perhaps newspaper owners could start the ball rolling with ‘holier than thou’ Editors and Journalists?

You’re right – the lack of Tory support is a problem, although 17 Conservative MPs do currently support it.

On the plus side, that is an opportunity for Gordon Brown to seize the initiative. There are even circumstances in which I could see the Conservative front bench supporting it.

Either way, it is crucial that this is legislated for before the election. That way a future administration would have to repeal the legislation to stop the convention. I’m betting that Cameron could ill afford to do this whilst attempting to portray himself as a change-maker. Such is politics.

*sound of palm connecting with forehead*