I’m one of some 30 signatories to a letter submitted to the Guardian, and published today, calling on the Prime Minister to take immediate action to reform democracy in the wake of the public collapse in confidence sparked by the MPs’ expenses row. Gordon Brown signalled some half-hearted recognition of the need for change in his conference speech by advocating a referendum to introduce the alternative vote electoral system some time in the next Parliament – it’s a typical Brown demi-measure, falling far, far short of even the minimum required.
There’s something rather bizarre at seeing on display the Telegraph’s book of this year’s scandal, No Expenses Spared – it’s the subtitle, The inside story of the scoop which changed the face of British politics. Bizarre for this reason: it’s hard to see how the face of British politics actually has been changed. For sure, some of the faces within British politics will have changed, with many of those MPs who were implicated standing down, voluntarily or under pressure.
But in every other significant respect, British politics is – six months on from flipping, duck island etc – entirely unchanged. And with the Tories committed only to the most superficial of makeovers for democracy (increasing the price of Parliamentary salads, etc), and Labour too knackered to govern themselves out of a paper bag, it’s hard to see where the change that’s so desperately needed will actually come from. Unless we get a Lib Dem government, natch. In the interim, a Citizens’ Convention seems the best, most liberal, means of achieving a democracy which truly represents the public.
Here’s the Guardian letter in full:
MPs returning to Parliament this week might like to think that the fury they faced earlier in the year due to the expenses scandal is now behind them. Yet the storm was as great as it was because of an underlying sense of alienation that has been developing for years.
Some of the ideas which emerged during the conference season aimed at closing this gulf between the political class and the public have been positive contributions, but none of them amount to the sort of fundamental change which we now desperately need. In particular, while Gordon Brown’s support for holding a referendum on electoral reform is a welcome shift, the promise of a vote on an electoral system hand picked by the Prime Minister will be greeted by much cynicism.
The UK needs an independent citizens’ convention to ensure that such decisions cannot be skewed by political self-interest. It is too late to complete such a convention before the general election, but it could be legislated for and begin its work in a matter of weeks. Its work could then progress regardless of which party goes on to form the next government.
We therefore urge the Prime Minister to ease the passage of the Citizens’ Convention (Accountability and Ethics) Bill through Parliament. By establishing this process Gordon Brown signal a commitment to democratic reform in a way that no amount of manifesto commitments and pledges could achieve.
Signed by,
Peter Facey, Unlock Democracy
Caroline Lucas MEP, Green Party
Peter Tatchell, human rights campaigner
Claire Rayner
Tony Robinson
Sunder Katwala, Fabian Society (personal capacity)
Neal Lawson, Compass
Jessica Asato, Progress
Carey Oppenheim, IPPR
Simon Woolley, Operation Black Vote
Pam Giddy, Power2010
Anthony Barnett, Open Democracy
David Babbs, 38 Degrees
Elaine Bagshaw, Liberal Youth
Ron Bailey, Local Works
Jonathan Bartley, Ekklesia
Tamasin Cave, Spinwatch
Peter Emerson, De Borda Institute
Nina Fishman
James Graham, Social Liberal Forum
Alex Hilton, LabourHome
Sunny Hundal, Liberal Conspiracy
David Miller, Spinwatch
Vicky Seddon, Unlock Democracy
Nan Sloane, Centre for Women in Democracy
Alex Smith, LabourList
Graham Smith, Republic
Stephen Tall, Lib Dem Voice
Samuel Tarry, Young Labour
Perry Walker, New Economics Foundation
Stuart Weir, Democratic Audit
Stuart White
Stuart Wilks-Heeg, Democratic Audit
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Picturesque decay: The Derwent Valley Light Railway in the Sixties
West End Ward Tuesday Surgeries #dundeewestend
Is Trump set to get his revenge on Labour?
Meeting the new locality coordinator
Hywel
Margaret
Alan Jelfs
Nonconformistradical
David
13 Comments
Right, so let me get this straight. You criticise Brown for coming up with a “demi-measure, falling far, far short of even the minimum required”, and then propose a ‘Citizens Convention’ to save our democracy.
*sound of palm connecting with forehead*
LFAT – not sure I understand your point. A Citizens’ Convention will address how to ‘save democracy’ – including Parliamentary reform, expenses reform, political donations reform, and electoral reform. A referendum to bring in AV doesn’t even scratch the surface. See http://tiny.cc/TTOhk for more.
A citizens’ convention is a good idea, but to gain traction it will need support from more than ‘the usual suspects’. I note, for instance, that there are no names I recognise as being Tories on the list of signatories. How do we put pressure on the Tories to go down this path given that Brown is unlikely to legislate for such a convention in the few months remaining to him in power and that Cameron is likely to form the next government?
You will be ignored. The Tories are funded by off-shore companies and wont change that, with a war-chest of £50 million, the likes of Lord Irvine in Monaco, Lord Ashcroft bringing in dosh from Belize, that’s not going to change…neither is the secret funding who run donations through organisations like the Midland Industrial Council… and why should they even consider a fairer voting system to ensure MPs have at least 50 per cent of the vote of the dwindling number of those who still bother to vote…its not in their interest.
Philip – quite probably such a call would be ignored by the Tories. But they still need to be pressured on the subject, if only to expose the hollowness of their vague promises of reform.
Bernard,
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.
I am 100% in favour of both a fairer voting system AND engaging citizens in the process of change. But I’m not sure seeking to tie the hands of an incoming government with legislation from its terminal predcessor is terribly democratic. We’d not support that if the subject of the legislation was something we opposed. The best chance for reform is to elect reformist MPs, including as many Lib Dems as possible. http://bridgetfox.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/time-for-a-citizens%e2%80%99-convention/
Shame I’m no longer a businessman.
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?
Bridget,
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.
James
“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.
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).
Here is what I write to the Guardian in response to their article on the subject. Unfortunately, I did not have time to write something shorter and hence more likely to get published in their letters page.
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.
We should treat such proposals with caution, they sound radical but are
capable of misuse. Posing a question in order to get the desired answer
is a well-known trick. Constitutional issues are necessarily abstract,
and electoral systems are in addition mathematical. Most people,
particularly in Britain, have no knowledge, skills or interest in such
things. Any opinion they give, therefore, will be heavily biased by
who is chosen to give evidence to them. A citizen’s jury on electoral
reform, for example, if addressed mainly by smart-looking Labour and
Conservative politicians, is highly likely to come down massively in favour
of retaining the current system. The same people, with a
different bias in evidence, would be massively against it.
So the real power is in who is chosen to give evidence. The danger is that
this will be rigged, sealed with a similarly rigged referendum, and
constitutional reform shut down in future with “The people have spoken, who
are you to argue against what they wanted?”.
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.
To take this a little further, while I am in strong support of constitutional reform of the usual type proposed by the likes of Liberal Democrats, I don’t think that is the answer to what is clearly going wrong in politics and was brought to a head by the MPs’ expenses scandal and the public reaction against it.
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.