Bold reform of Parliament? More a damp squib

A Parliamentary committee of the great and the good is soon to propose some weally, weally wadical weforms.  No doubt the BBC is poised to tell us just how bold it all is.

Having sat and watched as a monumentally useless Commons nodded through every whim of the executive for the past decade or so, this committee wants to let another committee set the Commons agenda.  Some of the time.  When government allows it. And they also think that MPs should decide which MPs chair select committees.

This is all good stuff, and I don’t disagree with it, but it's hardly bold.  Nor is it anything like strong enough given the dire straits into which Westminster has sunk. These proposals on their own will hardly kick start our moribund Commons out of its self-induced stupor. 

Indeed, David Cameron has already covered this ground when he made it clear that "The House of Commons should have more control over its own timetable, so there's time for proper scrutiny and debate.  MPs should be more independent - so Select Committee Chairmen and members should be elected by backbenchers, not appointed by Whips."

If this committee really wanted to be bold, why not give the said select committees the power to approve the budget of each ministers' department.  Annually.  Live on TV.  Line by line. 

Or the power to confirm all quango appointees and annual expenditure?

Or to right to confirm the appointment of each minister?  A separation of powers? Now that’d be bold. 

Posted on 23 November 2009 by Douglas Carswell

Comments

Do you know what would be really radical? Handing power back to the people and stop it from accumulating in Whitehall committees.

The state needs to be trimmed back to a its roots and left with the bare minimum; i.e a police force to protect private property so that uk citizens are able to enjoy the maximum possible liberty.


In fact I'm struggling to think of anything useful at all that the state can provide other than that and border control. As The Commons seems to be suffering from a legitimacy crisis these days with miniscule turnouts perhaps MP's could remind why we, the public, really need them at all.

Posted on 23 November 2009 22:43 by chefdave

Douglas,

While we have the present system of Parties dictating that party comes before country, nothing will change!

To change the system we need a referendum thus enabling Britain to escape from 'EU rule' and thus able to govern ourselves. Then, and only then, will real 'Direct Democracy' be able to be introduced.

Will you, as an MP standing for re-election, be prepared to publicly sign the pledge that Albion Alliance is asking all candidates to do?

Posted on 23 November 2009 22:54 by WitteringsfromWitney

Another radical idea would involve making our first past the post electoral system truly that. So, 50% of voters in a constituency choose not to vote, whilst the remaining votes are split. The constituency chooses not to be represented.

If 50% or more of the seats returned nobody then for that parliamentary term no new laws would be made. To spice it up a bit prospective MP's could also state what they would like to be paid in both salary and expenses. It would be the only fair way to find out the true market price of any MP.

Posted on 23 November 2009 23:11 by chefdave

Plenty of examples like this, where central government overrides all the opposition. One local to me is the case of Northstowe, a new town near Cambridge. After all the dust had settled, everyone, including developers and locals, had agreed that a mid-range plan for 8,000 homes should be adopted. Along comes the goverment inspector who decress that actually no, the 10,000 home plan is what we get. No means of appeal against the decision either, made by an unelected official who probably doesn't even live anywhere near the development.

This was also where the absurdity of the Standards Committee was highlighted. The local villagers elected one of their number to the district council to be their voice, but he then got hauled up for speaking on something where he had an interest, even though that's exactly what he had been elected to do.

Posted on 24 November 2009 11:21 by David Hough

Oops... that should have gone under the wind turbine entry...

Posted on 24 November 2009 11:23 by David Hough

Douglas,

I agree with all your points about making parliament stronger re: the executive. However, do you think that the caliber of the MPs is good enough to give them such power?

Perhaps these changes need to be phased in over 10/20 years to attract back-benchers of a higher quality?

We have too many MPs who have only ever worked in politics and never worked in the real world.

Posted on 24 November 2009 20:14 by John Chaytor

Make A Comment