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.
No comments:
Post a Comment