I don’t think it is now. If Labour acts decisively (probably under a different leader than Brown, who’s about as decisive as a sack of suet) and writes up a list of constitutional reform proposals, then puts them to the people in a referendum (with each proposal being voted on separately, of course), they will appear to be responding decisively and appropriately to people’s concerns. This will improve Labour’s poll ratings.

Also, every voter who isn’t a Conservative supporter — about 62% of them — has an interest in avoiding Conservative victory under FPTP and will probably vote for PR.

So the constutional crisis prompted by the expenses scandal may well lead to a Labour minirity government. elected by PR, probably with Johnson or Miliband as leader.

If you’re going to do that, why limit it to ethnicity and religion? Why not add gender, age, profession, nose length, left-handedness, level of educational qualifications, etc. And if you’re going to do that, the best way is to choose people randomly from the electoral roll. Which actually wouldn’t be a bad idea for part of the membership of the house of lords.

But it’s a stupid idea for the Commons, whose membership should be determined by who the voters vote for, and no other factors.

“The single most important reform the Parliament need right now is to have the same percentage member of parliaments from each ethnicity or religion in the population,
A cap must be introduced for each ethnicity to only have the same number of members of parliaments as per their percentage rate of the total population,and without exceptions.
If a certain Group is say 5% of total population, then only up to 5% members of parliaments should be from that group,not 5.5%
This should be followed in all the parliamentarian committees and legislations.”

WTF? Seriously, what drugs were you on when you wrote this.

I take it you don’t like democracy. You don’t like the idea that people can vote for whoever they want. If there are “too many” of a particular race or religion in parliament, then we’re not allowed to vote in someone of that race/religion however good they would be.

When you think about it, what you’re suggesting wouldn’t work unless you abolished democracy, because every ethnicity and religion would have to have their precise percentage of the population represented in parliament in order to stop others having too much. So it would be a cap as much as a quota.

Unless of course, the only ethnicity you don’t want a cap for is “White British”, in which case you’re just a racist. (BNP troll?)

Agreed on that, the Cameron suggestions reminded me in style of the Brown “new broom” presentation. Though things like fixed term Parliaments are necessary ideas – even with the exceptional events get-out clause.

But every small step is a small step, for all that.

I think it will depend on how far the momentum of the Expenses Gate Bandwagon can be transferred to the Real Reform Steamroller.

Classic Tory hypocrisy.

http://willrhodesportmanteau.com/2009/05/26/dave-cameron-i-will-become-a-socialist-in-power/

As has already been said, the texting etc. is populist nonsense, and his defence of FPTP is completely illogical (he seems to be arguing against an unmentioned straw-man of closed party lists, rather than taking on the gamut of PR options). Although his reforms look good on paper, even if he were to carry them through, they would be superficial.

There’s no exploration into the deep areas of where sovereignty is located in our system, and thus no examination of the problem of the Crown, symbolised by an ineffective and unaccountable head of state, whose powers are wielded with further unaccountability by the executive, who control both legislative houses (by patronage of the Lords and block voting in the Commons).

However, a constitutional convention as a route to examining the full range of issues involved in a codified and written constitution remains an attractive idea too. I don’t think they are incompatible. Of course, it could not be run and completed within a year. If established in a way that had genuine engagement and participation (which is a big If I appreciate), I think it would be difficult for any government not to engage seriously with its outcomes and recommendations.

—

On Labour’s record: I think many of the criticisms are valid, and have made several of them myself. But I do think the Labour government’s record on constitutional change in the 1997-2001 Parliament is by some distance the most important and substantive set of political reforms in the UK since the 1911 Parliament Act.

The problem is that the momentum was not sustained after 2001, and the government has then also been caught by its own half-reforms where we have more transparency without legitimacy (eg party funding). There is lots of unfinished business and several areas where I have advocated going further (including electoral reform). But I think a fair assessment of the record would not the unusual scale of change, certainly in the context of British political history.

I welcome Cameron’s engagement, which is a long way from where the Conservatives have been in the past (though they did well in 1979 to carry through the introduction of Select Committeees). But I do not yet see anything at all on his agenda today which can be compared to devolution, or to freedom of information, or to the human rights act, in terms of judging the scale of change being mooted.

It’s *way* too late for any sort of constitutional convention on PR. There’s no way Cameron would agree to honour it, and it would have no time to report before he inevitably takes office. The best bet is to push for a referendum on PR to coincide with the next election. While the Tories wouldn’t be bound by that either, they would find a yes vote very difficult to ignore.

#14
> If Labour are serious about outbidding Cameron on this they have to make progress beyond promises immediately, because they’ve had 12 years to do something.

Precisely. Immediately being the operative word. Their record on this has been pathetic, and alas I see no reason it won’t continue to be bound by self-interest and conservatism.

If they wish to u-turn on the u-turn then they’ve already done enough work to legitimately say that a referendum is needed, there’s no barrier in their way.

I’d have to see actual changes – not consultations – initiated in the next few months.

http://www.nextleft.org/2009/05/camerons-constitutional-caution.html

….

An auction between the two major parties on political reform is to be welcomed. David Cameron is offering incremental reforms of a rather similar kind to that which has been pursued by the government, where Gordon Brown’s intention of a “new constitutional settlement” has so far become something more of a tidying-up exercise of moderate reforms.

David Cameron’s intervention sets out two possibilities for the next few weeks.

One is that a broad consensus is emerging on an incremental and somewhat cautious agenda of useful but piecemeal constitutional reforms of the type he sets out. This would strengthen Cameron’s claim to have responded confidently to the Parliamentary crisis, though in several areas his proposals are similar to those of the government.

The alternative is that the Labour government realises that Cameron has left considerable space for a more comprehensive constitutional reform agenda, and seeks to reignite an agenda which has lost momentum since 2001.

How should the bidding be raised? Alan Johnson’s intervention on an electoral reform referendum is gathering further support.

The most significant would be to move well beyond talking about responding, consultation and ‘listening’ to the public mood – and to cede significant power to shape the outcomes of political reform to a new constitutional convention.

So, reading between the lines and stripping away the PR fluff that was his stock-in-trade at Carlton TV’s PR department, we have :

- Calls for “personal responsibility”, which means “benefit cuts”
- Transferring of power “from the EU to Britain”, which means “get out of the EU and retreat further into our abusive relationship with the US”
- “… Any suitably qualified organisation can set up a new school”, which means a return of the unfair selective education system, probably with the onus on religious schools
- The aforementioned “NIMBY” charter, which basically means new homes will only get built in areas which can’t afford to oppose them, handy for keeping the riff-raff away from your Surrey mansion.

Yup – same old Tories, despite their newfound affinity for spin.

I completely agree that it’s public money and think just publishing the expenses without names attached would be enough to ensure transparency and generate an outcry about unacceptable claims, which could then be dealt with by superiors.

Civil servants are our employees and it’s our money they squander.

I disagree with free votes and I’m not sure I agree with giving MPs the right to change the timetabling of bills – isn’t this government’s responsibility?

I don’t see how government can force parties into granting free votes – surely it is up to each Party to make its own decision on that. After all, any MP is entitled to a free vote if they give up the Party whip.

Publishing details of civil servants’ expenses is fine if it’s anonymous, but I don’t think it’s fair if their name is given with it, unless the private sector will also reciprocate.

We need PR though and a seperation of Crown and State, preferably that abolition of the former.