Is
better Government possible?
Current discussion centres around severe loss of
trust, "sleaze" and other misdemeanours in our
Parliamentary Democracy.
Without delving into the past too much it would be advisable for the
other three main Parties in Westminster to reflect on their own
histories as well as the Johnsonian Conservative administration, e.g.
- Parliamentary expenses scandal when Labour was in power, Chris
Hühne during the
Tory Liberal-Democrat coalition and SNP with the present
Grady/Blackford issue plus Natalie McGarry a few years ago. I am
certainly not a Conservative and the simplistic wish for Proportional
Representation seems opportunistic, not reflective of a deeper
malaise and an absence of more rigorous analysis which allows (and
perhaps contributes) to bad behaviour. Indeed it may be that PR would
multiply bad behaviour in our system as it requires more croneyism
which is at present a major contributing factor. And in so doing
lessen the effectiveness of our Parliamentary
Democracy. It will be clear from this
opening that I very much support our Parliamentary system and believe
that the present arrangements are not adequate to deal with the quasi
Presidential modus operandi we
now have. In addition Parliament itself through the medium of
administrative processes (e.g. Standards/Behaviour) has diminished
it's own standing as a viable and vibrant integral mainstay of our
politics. For explanation, I am not saying that the present
administrative processes should be abandoned but that their
presentation of the facts in any particular case should be just that
without any judgement whatsoever and that Parliament is then left to
decide. (The notion that a Civil Servant would not be judgemental, or
not, is naive in the extreme (see Sue Gray report which, in my view,
should have gone to Parliament not the Prime Minister).
How do I get to this conclusion? Well I start with
the electorate and their views! It should be worrying that UK turnout
in General Elections has been steadily
declining
from 78.7% in 1959 to 67.3% in 2019. (Source:
House of Commons Research Papers 01/37, 01/54, 05/33 & 10/36).
How often have you heard the common refrain: "They're only in it
for themselves"; or even more apt, on Bury Market during the
2019 General Election Campaign a citizen was asked about Boris
Johnson and replied; ' he's probably the best of a bad bunch as he is
borderline human'.
There will be many other examples of the public's view of our
Parliamentary Democracy most of them uncomplimentary and a lot
unprintable!
This
brings me to the second point. We are discussing our Parliamentary
Democracy not
our Presidential system.
Much of this drift towards: Big
Job requires Big Person who is all powerful is
a construction of Spin Doctors and twenty four hours News Programmes.
(Note omnipotence is in the ownership of God not Politicians nor
Commentators, myself included). The relationship between Politicians
and the News Media is dangerous for serious analysis and debate, as
the visual media sells instant answers to very complex problems. Not
to do that militates against the media's attractiveness for continued
viewing and income from advertising. Over simplification brings with
it greater disappointment when the promised solutions are not
delivered. This has become a never ending merry go round of near
vacuous verbiage!
The
third point is: How are persons selected for Parliamentary
candidature? This is an area where Parties have control and over the
years have assumed that electorates in those constituencies will
continue to vote on a Party Ticket although of late this appears to
be declining. However Parties continue to impose Candidates. The
desire of Parties is to have compliant members so that the Governing
Party's programme can be voted through. Independent thinkers and
potential rebels are not welcome, with very few exceptions. It is
therefore the unanswerable case that Parliament does not have the
most talented and competent people.
What
might be done to improve behaviour and competence? Together with
enhancing our Parliamentary Democracy. Today I shall concentrate on
Party procedures which can only be part of the necessary reforms!
(Other reforms would definitely include the Civil Service and
transferring administrative oversight of political/government
activities back to the political arena). The desire for control by
Parties has to be loosened. I would suggest very strongly that
compulsory Primaries would have to be held in each constituency in
selecting Candidates for prospective election to Parliament. I
believe the compulsory element is necessary so as to maximise
participation. Affiliation could be withdrawn or changed at any time.
People would have to register as a Party Supporter and those putting
themselves forward would engage with a much wider electorate than is
presently the case. The process to be managed via the existing
Electoral Registration system. Only Parties registered by the
Electoral Commission could proceed to a Primary. Others would have to
declare as Independents. Those putting themselves forward would be
subject to scrutiny much more so than at present and the likelihood
of past behaviour being exposed should contribute to better
representation.
The
three main arguments against this proposal are: cost; necessity and
that it would favour the wealthy/organised. It is accepted that there
would be an increase in cost but this should be minimised by using
the existing Electoral Registration/Counting arrangements and
utilising electronic/mechanical aids. With regard to necessity I do
not think it can be argued that this is unnecessary given the current
low trust between Government and Electorate. As to favouring the
wealthy/organised this arrangement should help those willing to act
collectively e.g. Trade Unions as against the herds of Lawyers,
Journalists and the 'never had a proper job'. For a little effort,
much change could be effected with the distinct possibility of a
better democracy. Certainly it would be less costly and less divisive
than PR (of whatever flavour was subsequently decided). With these
changes more people representative of the electorate should be chosen
and some of the hindrances to the talented and capable would be
removed. Our democracy would stand a better chance of being improved
and trust would increase.
