Three simple ways to reform EDMs, without harming the fibreglass sheep

Dizzy Thinks has been on the case again about the costs run by Early Day Motions in Parliament. As he delicately puts it:

Yes, we really do have to spend £150K alone on the salary, pension and NI contributions for the poor sods that have to sort out the latest self-congratulatory bollocks that our MPs want to spout off fruitlessly about.

The combination of cost and triviality of many EDMs has caused some people to call for their abolition. I think this is going too far, as some EDMs do provide a useful mechanism, as a focus for external campaign groups, to get MPs to put their views on the public record and to show the volume of support on an issue.

Many do not, so here are three simple suggestions for reforming EDMs.

First, as Dizzy and others have pointed out, there is really no need to print the EDMs on paper. An electronic version achieves all the benefits just as well (and in fact pretty much all that is needed already exists at http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/). So abolish the paper versions.

A sheep. Photo credit: David Masters on FlickrSecond, a large number of EDMs get only a trivial number of signatures. In the 2009-10 Parliamentary session, for example, of the 1,315 EDMs and amendments, 383 (29%) got 20 signatures or fewer; 205 of those even received only 10 signatures or fewer.

So a simple introduction of a minimum number of initial signatories would cut out a huge amount of the trivial. Requiring signatures from members of at least two parties (or independents) would also focus minds on using EDMs for something other than a simple extension of usual party hostilities.

And third? Have a quiet word with Robert Halfon, the champion of the unsuported EDM. In the current Parliamentary session, the newly elected Conservative MP for Harlow, has managed an impressive 10 of the 33 EDMs or amendments which have only been signed by one MP so far.

His EDM about fibreglass sheep in Harlow, however, is not one of those. Not only has it won four signatures, they cross party lines too. So lovers of Parliamentary action on fibreglass sheep can rest easy. They would be safe from this reforming axe. You can only have so much reform you know.

Thanks to Dizzy for the tip on how to get the data about number of signatures per EDM.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds and Parliament.
Advert

One Comment

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • neil James sandison
    This for those of us who have elections by thirds this would be the second /cancellation ,postponement . It has disrupted the selection process and undermines ...
  • James Fowler
    It would have been 'safer' to keep Trump in office. Thank goodness the American elections were not postponed. Something to think about before we carrying on bli...
  • Denis Mollison
    Thanks to Nick for giving us some feedback, but we need a much more informed and inclusive process. My guess from the above is that the FCC are showing a tende...
  • Ruth Bright
    I agree with Lorenzo! Ed Davey's performance on Andrew Marr was risible - apparently FOCUS deliverers will sanitise their hands etc etc (what - between each let...
  • Steve Comer
    Bear in mind that many of the elections due to be held in May were already postponed from May 2020. I don't think it is democratic for any Councillors to have ...