This is my column in today's Daily Telegraph (See HERE). The comments on the Telegraph site are interesting in that they have so far concentrated slagging off Ken Clarke or talking about issues which weren't even covered by his report!
This week's launch of Ken Clarke's Democracy Task Force paper on parliamentary reform will go some way to dispelling the myth that Cameron's Conservatives are policy-lite.
At the launch, David Cameron looked genuinely excited by the proposals Mr Clarke has produced. Indeed, he seemed far more enthused than Mr Clarke himself. And so he might. The paper represents a genuine attempt to find ways of modernising Parliament and re-engaging people with the political process.
The headline proposal is to take the Downing Street e-petitions one stage further and experiment with what has come to be known as "direct democracy". The current online petitions are pretty meaningless and largely ignored. Not even the Prime Minister is told which has attracted the most support each week.
The Tory suggestion is that once an e-petition has attracted a certain number of signatures, it should be debated in Parliament and voted on. It doesn't seem a radical idea, but to adherents of the Burkian theory of representative democracy it is a red rag to a bull.
Members of Parliament jealously guard their representative rights. And while the basic tenets of representative democracy still hold true, in an age when technology enables the people to have a direct say, surely we should all be looking at different ways to engage the electorate, rather than just allowing them a vote once every five years or so. That's the message Mr Cameron will be projecting. He sees this as the most important part of the Clarke task force and wants the idea fleshed out over the next few months.
I've got another idea, not discussed by Mr Clarke, which could also enhance the role of back-bench MPs and parliamentary debate. It is to allow the Early Day Motions with the most signatures in any given week to have an hour long-debate in Westminster Hall. EDMs are commonly described as graffiti on the walls of Parliament.
But if people really thought they could lead to a meaningful debate, they might lobby their MPs for a particular EDM.
Mostly, MPs are open to persuasion. There is a misconception that across the parties they behave like sheep and do the whips' bidding. Philip Cowley's research on the www.revolts.co.uk website shows that the 2001-2005 Parliament was the most rebellious in post-war history - and this one is currently on course to beat it.
Contrary to what people think, the power and influence of the whips is on the wane. There is little doubt that the Clarke proposals will hasten this trend, particularly in the area of select committees.
Mr Clarke proposes that whips should lose their powers of patronage over select committees and that committee chairmen should be elected by MPs. This will give them greater legitimacy and independence and provide an alternative career path for those MPs not suited to being ministers.
The most important of the Clarke proposals is to weaken the power of the executive over the legislature, but they could go further.
While the proposal for the prime minister to appear twice as often before the Liaison Committee is a good one, a more symbolic suggestion would have been to restore Prime Minister's Questions to a twice-weekly format. However, I understand from a source close to Mr Cameron that such a move has been ruled out. This is a pity.
In the coming weeks, three more policy commissions will be releasing their findings. Some commentators are already saying it is dangerous to provide Gordon Brown with the opportunity to deploy the "great clunking fist". It's a misjudgment: they cannot complain at the lack of policy and then advise Mr Cameron to wait a little longer before coming out with policy proposals for fear of what Mr Brown might do.
But what the task forces indicate most strongly is the dawn of a new political era in which the Conservatives will be having a conversation with the nation, while Mr Brown retreats to the only thing he knows - adversarial politics. We'll soon see who is most in tune with the electorate.
18 comments:
All good stuff from Mr Clarke and Mr Dale.
Clarke however seems to be ignoring two elephants - centralisation by Westminster and unaccountable legislation by Brussels.
While it is undoubtedly true to observe "Contrary to what people think, the power and influence of the whips is on the wane. There is little doubt that the Clarke proposals will hasten this trend", is the unspoken assumption that this trend is a positive one correct? I for one do not think so.
I can't help feeling that the recent furore over the FOI bill indicates the very uphill struggle that will be required to make even some of Mr. Clarke's proposals possible. It won't happen on Brown's watch, that's for sure! Turkeys. Vote. Christmas.
Ed, there is actually quite a bit in the Clarke paper about improving scrutiny of Euro legilsation.
David, can you explain a bit more? I'm interested in your logic.
Slim Jim, you may be right. The Forces of conservatism may reassert themselves!
Iain thanks for setting me straight. I haven't read the full report so I was going on the media reports. Perhaps it is the media who ignore the EU elephant!
"The comments on the Telegraph site are interesting in that they have so far concentrated slagging off Ken Clarke" - it's extraordinary the bile still regularly heaped on Ken's head. I guess most of it comes from those strange people who are convinced that the EU is a vast conspiracy which exists solely to do Britain down.
We’ve been it or its predecessor for nearly 35 years and there’s not the slightest prospect that we’ll ever leave and yet it continues to poison so much debate especially on the right wing of British politics...
The debate of petitions is a good move, as it will ensure that people actually feel involved in the political process for the five(ish) years between elections.
MPs do seem to think a bit too much of themselves. I recall when Geoffrey Clifton-Brown was on an offical visit in Saudi Arabia and was, along with other MPs, before their flight home delayed in the airport late at night. He phoned and woke the British Ambassador for him to complain to the Saudis that there were expected to wait at an airport and they were not being treated with enough respect.
Well ingnoring how non-electors should treat MPs they do have to remember that they serve us and that respect is earnt. If they vote to increase salarys, expenses etc whilst never answering questions and sometimes asking patetic questions (will the PM say how wonderful we are etc) then why should people bother to trust, respect MPs.
Notice how after Fathers4Justice powder bombed parliament immediately a security screen was put-up to protect them from a small risk - yet parliament never feels that giving every house - old and new - a free smoke alarm would also be a good idea?
Actually Edward the security screen was installed shortly before the F4J purple powder attack - they just managed to get seats in front of it.
I fear that even after Dave has decontaminated the Tory Brand (around 2030, when the last Thatcherite succumbs to Alzheimers), poor old Clarke will remain toxic. Except with the public at large, of course, but they scarcely matter, do they?
"The comments on the Telegraph site are interesting in that they have so far concentrated slagging off Ken Clarke" - it's extraordinary the bile still regularly heaped on Ken's head. I guess most of it comes from those strange people who are convinced that the EU is a vast conspiracy which exists solely to do Britain down.
My bit of it comes from hearing numerous interviews with him during the Major years, in which he made clear that he couldn't give a monkeys for the opinions of his own party activists, let alone the public at large - he was in office and he was going to do what he liked.
That's why he never became party leader. Not because of his views. Not for lack of ability. But for his arrogance. And to hear this man, who did more than any other MP of any party to sabotage the efforts I was making at the time to rebuild a party branch, suggest that he is seriously interested in democratising the governance of this country - well words fail me.
We must restore confidence in parliament and that requires several steps.
We need to restore the supremacy of Parliament so that EU rules cannot override what our electors want and judges cannot overrule the legislative. Judges are there to interpret the law, not to make laws.
It is essential that the public perceives Parliament as an institution of serious and well-mannered people. PMs Questions are near-barbaric and such disorderly conduct within 100 yards of the Houses surely warrants an ASBO or two [or more].
The post of Speaker should be filled by a body of specially -trained civil servants so that decisons made are neutral.
Ministers should all be appointed from the House of Commons so that they can be called to account there and, indeed, answer to their own electors. Peers speaking for the main parties should only be described as spokesmen.
Lastly, Hughes Views - opposition to further integration with Europe was old Labour's policy as well - not just a fear of the Right. Labelling all who hold a contrary opinion to yours with convenient tags lends nothing to debate. There are British citizens of all political persuasions who believe that the EU is intrusive. We must be able to accept what is beneficial and to discard what is not. Our Parliament is sworn to protect our interests. I know of no Westminster MP who swears an oath to uphold EU rules or its superstate constitution.
Whatever recommendations the Clarke paper makes about reform of scrutiny of European legislation are rather overshadowed by the reference to the "European Affairs Select Committee".
There is no such committee. There is a European Scrutiny Committee, the function of which is to examine each EU document deposited in Parliament by the Government, to dig out further information on it, to decide whether it is legally or politically important, and whether it merits further debate. It published weekly reports which go into considerable detail.
While the Clarke report may be admirable in its recommendations, errors like the one above tend to give the impression he has not quite done the necessary research.
Victor from NW Kent:
"The post of Speaker should be filled by a body of specially -trained civil servants so that decisions made are neutral."
What on earth do you think House of Commons Clerks do?
If I follow the link, I am enabled to peruse Iain's article together with varous advertisements whose presence go someway toward offsetting the enormous fee charged for Iain's omniscience.
Anything must be better than writing a letter to an MP. But what about extending the concept to local matters for local issues and specialist matters where diffuse groups of professionals could be represented: many of the most damaging and foolish decisions of the past could have been prevented if for example actuaries on Penson Planning and doctors and surgeons on Health had been enabled to use their much greater levels of intelligence and expertise to put a position directly.
Clarke proposes that, "Whips should lose their powers of patronage over select committees and ... committee chairmen should be elected by MPs."
Hear hear! An essential reform.
My own proposal would be for the Speaker to exert far tighter control over ministers, including the prime minister. For a start:
1) Insist on their answering questions properly;
2) Censure them severely for making policy announcements on the Today programme instead of the floor of the House;
3) Put an end to the practice of slipping out embarassing written answers on Thursday or Friday afternoons; and
4) Outlaw stupid cliches such as, "We will take no lessons from the party opposite."
Only members of Parliament returned for English seats should now be sitting at Westminster; Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland have their own parliaments.
The Union of the United Kingdom is not just threatened, it is collapsing.
All the matters that are of concern to the Union are in any case under the Executive's authority; and what is not is theirs, thanks to the whipping.
An English Parliament is now the primary and essential parliamentary reform.
Very good point about the need to press on with the policy-making process regardless of the Great Clunking Fist. The openness of the Tories compared to the paranoia and spinning that already characterises Brown will be stark. Anyway, people have given their time and effort freely to the policy reviews and it would ungrateful at the very least not to make use of their efforts.
I totally agree with Hatfield Girl that an English parliament is a essential prerequisite of meaningful parliamentary reform for the overwhelming majority of the people of UK who live in England.
The English parliament must then hold an immediate referendum on our membership of the corrupt EU, on the sort of membership we wish to have, if any. The results of this should be used to inform both the renegotiation of England's membership of the EU and to what extent, if any we accept the terms of the wide ranging Constitution Blair will shortly sign.
There must be no more arrogant talk of 'Little Englanders' in respect of this.
First, because it's racist and insults both the indigenous English and those from all over the world who have settled here, love England as the English do and have adopted it as their country.
Second, because it insults the majority of the people of these islands - and in a manner which would not be tolerated in respect of other parts of the union.
Post a Comment