And as China shows, provided you offer people ongoing consumer choices (including the income to make them) political liberty is a pretty low priority for most folk. We are going down a road that will lead, if not to a dictatorship, at least to a post-democratic polity. Perhaps we are quite a long way down it already.

Does Labour have anyone who cd give a lead? There are various good Labour peolple in the Parliament First group, but I suppose that Alan Johnson is the most likely person, being untainted by cheationg or milking his expenses and being for PR.

I would endorse much of what CouncilHouseTory wrote, BUT it is useless to reform the House of Lords without repealing both Parliament Acts. In other words the power of the Lords, and its ability to say ‘NO’ and it to mean No is very very important. By rebalancing the Constitution you would go along way to restore a true political culture and prevent many bad laws. What we have now is the dictatorship of the Commons, as we have seen with the whipped ranks of New Labour over the last 12 years.

I also think it is significant that no one (from a cursory glance at all the posts) seems to have mentioned the role of the EU in politics. So much of our law is now imposed on us from Brussels without any proper debate – I think it amounts to a staggering 70% – and the effect this undemocratic structure has had to political life, where it has really sucked the life blood out of politics like some sort of vampire. Frank Field was on the nail when he said MPs turned up week in week out with very little to do. Not only does the Government not want proper debate (they allow minimum time to debate quite complex bills) nor do they want proper scrutiny of what they do.

This illustrates my point. If you use the term ‘PR’ to describe what is actually multi-member constituencies, you will simply lose the support of anyone who is minded to reform but opposes PR.

PR = Party list pure PR in the minds of most people.

Whatever system comes into being; it will be only as good as people who are elected.

They’ve gone under 40% in the polls for the first time in months or even years.

“I think the time has come to re-open the republic question.”

Funny you say that when at the moment the monarch is probably the only institution that has come out of this affair with its reputation improved. Say what you like about the Queen but she isn’t a crook. If she dissolved Parliament here and now she’d probably become even more popular.

Seriously.

They aren’t going to get a better chance. What are they waiting for? Clegg hit a home run by telling the Speaker to resign, but he needs to follow up.

Good article, but I think the idea of a citizens assembly is pap. No need to elevate any citizens above any others: let us all be equal and cast our vote. This government has made far too much of a mess with its “panels of citizen advisors”.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/18/mps-expenses-constitution-electoral-reform

thanks councilhousetory – very useful comments! I think we need an agenda like that of Charter88 which managed to combine a number of important elements, including those you mention, and unite people from many different perspectives. engaging with conservative constitutional reformers is crucial.

I presume you accept the tories would be a part of this, so here’s a few tips for approaching/selling it to them from a tory:

1) When talking about reform of the voting system in the Commons, don’t use the term PR, if you actually mean STV. Virtually all tories hate pure PR and will oppose it. However, I have found when talking to Lib Dems and some Labour members, that when they say PR, they are actually talking about multi-member STV constituencies.

A big difference and you will find sympathy amongst tories for MM-STV if it means they get to vote against, eg, Mackay, without having to support other parties.

2) With regard to the Lords, the tories are by nature conservative, so treat reforms of old institutions with a large dose of suspicion. So how to sell it? Go negative. With the removal of hereditaries and the wanton appointment of life peers, the Lords has become something of a plaything for the government and the political elite more broadly. Also, they will see that a future government can dominate the Lords by simply appointing hundreds of peers. The spectre of 1997 still looms large in the collective tory conscience.

Lots of tories, especially those in the ‘squireocracy’, are horrified by what has happened to the Lords and are there to be convinced that a democratic Lords would be an improvement.

3) Seek reformers. They are there. You might not agree with all of their politics but that’s not the issue here. Douglas Carswell supports multi-member constituencies for example.

Me personally, I would try to get the Lords democratic first, through some form of pure PR based on votes cast at a GE. I also think MM-STV should be introduced for the commons and constituencies equalised. For example, one of the constituencies in Hackney is 50,000 in size, whilst Croydon North is 80,000 in size.

Anyways, good luck.

As I said a few days ago, this affair is having no effect on the Tory party and the way the story has been reported has been done by a supporting Tory newspaper who knows that it is the governing party that is unpopular and it is they that the public will vote out of power. I have nothing against people being angry with Labour Mps but there is an anti Labour movement which is using thIs for it’s own political ends.

http://www.riphertoshreds.co.uk/the-beat-goes-on/spotified/the-playlist/

Hi Rick – I’ll accept that, but it still leaves open the questions: How do we organise this movement? We need a vehicle of some sort. And secondly we need some aims. What would you suggest we should aim for?

Lastly, there may be lots of civil society will out there, but we still need a plan of action that involves some direction… which will eventually have to involve some politicians…

Thanks Anthony – in the absence of a Citizens Assembly set up by parliament, I think the Scottish Constitutional Convention model is the most appropriate for a developing an agenda for reform, bringing in elements of civil society, campaigning organisations and people from all the parties who want change. I agree that speed is important!

Sunny – the vehicle would be key people from across civil society, reformers from all the parties and none. There are constitutional reformers across the spectrum – until now the biggest obstacle has been a lack of public interest and therefore political will. And that has changed.