I feared, last May when Clegg was put in charge of Constitutional reform, that it may just be about the Voting referendum. I feared, that the government no matter which way the vote went would say enough reform for this term and not complete the most urgent reforms the system needs. I am sad to say that at present it looks like I may be right.
Let's first start with the referendum on how we vote. I am disappointed that real debate about the best system for the country, but rather which is better out of what are quite an average two proposals neither of which have a proportional element. To my mind this seems illogical, why have a referendum on changing the system if most of the choices have already been ruled out? That's not direct democracy at all but rather a gimmick.
However constitutional reform is bigger than the voting system used for the democratically elected part of our Houses of Parliament. Surely before we try to make one house more democratic we should make the other slightly democratic? It is ludicrous that in the 21st century the House of Lords is appointed not elected. The senate in America was modelled initially on the House of Lords, but one of the few reforms they have made to their constitution was to make the upper house accountable to the people. This is a much more important debate to have than which non proportional voting system we should use.
Equally important is the balance of executive, legislative and judicial powers which i'm sure most people would agree are out of kilter. We have in this country what I like to call a tyranny of the executive, that is to say because the Make up of the House of Commons determines the executive bills are passed through half the legislative without a real debate or reforming aspect. I was always told the best politics is the politics of compromise, if this is true then we have an awful system. It is left to the house of Lords (which I have already pointed out is unelected and unrepresentative) to be kind of weak check on the executives power. This system is in much more need of scrutiny than how we elect mp's who when it boils down to it have limited influence on the legislation passed.
What troubles me most is that these discussions about our countries political system are not happening. But only by becoming more reflective of the society politicians serve can politics regain any kind of trust. People can and will disagree with me, that is fine but lets at least have the debate.
I pretty much agree with all this.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to the first paragraph: that's because the AV referendum is a concession, not just to the LibDems, but to the public in general - once it's passed, whatever the outcome, political reform is likely to be far less significant, if not buried altogether. This is also significant to the first sentence of the last paragraph as a reason why.