Policy Comparison 2 – Democracy

The Issues
Today we’re looking at Democracy and where the parties stand. The issues that face the parties are a widespread disengagement from mainstream politics, the expenses scandal and what some would see as a flawed electoral system. (As evidence for this last point, it is worth pointing out that on some projections the tories could get significantly more votes than Labour, but still get fewer seats). The Lib Dems longstanding commitment to voting reform and Gordon Brown’s last minute conversion to the cause, could make this a crucial issue in any negotiations for a hung parliament. So What are the parties actually saying:


CONSERVATIVE
• Using decentralisation, transparency and accountability we will weaken the old political elites, strengthen the power of the people, fix our broken politics and restore people's faith that if we act together things can change.
• This party also offers a detailed plan (not included here) based on; ethics and accountability, and transparency. Sadly lacking in detail, fine sounding words but I find it hard to see the tories as part of the solution rather than part of the old two-party elite that have created the current situation. I further expect that if the tories were to win an overall majority, their interest in electoral reform would be approximately zero.


LABOUR
• Setting out a radical programme of constitutional and parliamentary reform including legislating for a referendum on the Alternative Vote system and measures to complete House of Lords reform. Sounds good in theory, but Labour’s commitment to this is too recent to be really credible. See Points A and B.
• Introducing a power of Recall so that where an MP is found guilty of gross financial misconduct, but Parliament fails to act, electors will be able to petition for their representative to be recalled and a by-election held. Again, sounds ok in practice, but surely the real issue here is that if parliament fails to act there is much deeper issue than 1 MP.
• Holding a referendum early in the next Parliament on whether to move to the Alternative Vote (AV) for elections to the House of Commons, which retains the direct link between MP and constituency but which also ensures that MPs are elected with broad support. See point A below.
• Measures to strengthen disciplinary arrangements and increase accountability of members of the House of Lords, as well as broader reform, including completing the process of removing the hereditary principle. See point B below
• Limiting, or surrendering to Parliament, prerogative powers previously held by the executive, including: the power to send troops to war; the way treaties are ratified; judicial appointments, parliamentary oversight of the intelligence services; the power to dissolve and recall Parliament. Which is as near to saying we screwed up with Iraq as you’re likely to get. Not sure how parliamentary oversight of the intelligence services (where so much needs to be kept secret) would work in practice.
• Ensuring a fair say for all by devolving power away from the centre and to local people; giving councils more power to promote local democracy to increase citizen involvement and improve services by making them more responsive to local needs and ambitions. See Point C below.

LIB-DEMS
• This party will seek the public's approval to introduce a written constitution for Britain that defines and limits the power of government, with a Bill of Rights at its heart to protect individual rights - including, for the first time, the right to a clean environment. The written constitution is neither here nor there for me, but like the Bill of Rights idea, especially the right to a clean environment. Nice, innovative idea.
• Cut the excessive number of government departments and reduce the number of government ministers. Appeals to the anti-bureaucracy, which is always good rhetoric, but in practice can create as many problems as it solves.
• We will cut the number of MPs at Westminster by 150. Again appeals to the cost cutting, but could it also make MPs less accessible to the public – one of the strengths of the current system
• Put a cap on political donations so no one can buy influence over our elected Parliament. Wholeheartedly support this idea.
• Introduce tough new rules so that MPs' expenses are independently audited and receipts are required for every penny. – Another good idea that it’s hard to argue with.
• Introduce the fair single transferable vote (STV) system to give parties seats in proportion to the number of votes they receive. – Se Point A
• Reform the European electoral system allowing people to choose individual candidates for the European Parliament, rather than vote by party only as at present. – Again, I think this would an improvement on the current system, but probably not greatly increase interest in European elections
• Give select committees greater power of examination, including vetting new Secretaries of State before they take office. See point D

GREENs
• The constitutional functions of the monarchy should be abolished and the House of Lords should be replaced by a wholly elected second chamber. See point B on the House of Lords. The monarchy’s one of the few issues I’m fairly neutral on. Interestingly no mention of replacing monarch with an elected head of state.
• A new written constitution should be devised defining the rights and responsibilities of citizens. Again written constitution is neither here nor there. Rights and responsibilities bit could be good, but less detail than with the Lib-Dems.
• Elections should be by a system of proportional representation. The voting age should be reduced to 16 years. Yes to PR. Having worked with a lot of 16 year olds, I remain a little unconvinced by the lowered voting age, but maybe that’s just because I had to wait until I was 18?
• A 'recall' system needs introducing - where politicians must step down to face re-election if petitioned to do so by a significant proportion of electors. See Point D below.
• More local and regional decision - making and greater public participation at all levels. – See Point C below.
• We recognise the importance of addressing issues of common concern at the European and international levels, but not through a European super-state or inappropriate global bodies like the World trade Organisation (WTO) which undermine local democracy and global justice. Each function of government has an appropriate level, and defence would remain a national responsibility. It’s a statement of principal I’d more or less agree with, especially the bit about the WTO, which it seems to me completely fails to work for the interests of anyone except the richest countries and companies.


UKIP
• This party is calling for withdrawal from the European Union and the creation of a free trade agreement between the UK and EU states. Well, you wouldn’t really expect anything else from them, but I think this would be disastrous for the UK and a retrograde step.
• Citizens can initiate a referendum of they collect 2.5% of the electorate's signatures within 6 months. Can’t see this as the answer to voter apathy – would either never be used or produce so many unnecessary referenda as to produce voter fatigue and even lower turn-outs.
• Local county referenda can be used to veto planning projects, building on the green belt or to reinstate hunting with hounds. The threshold will generally be 2.5% of the electorate over a 3 month period. Local blocking of housing projects could be interesting, but wonder if there’s a better way of doing this than a referendum. Conjoining this with hunting – no, don’t bring it back.
• We believe in the 'right to recall' MPs who abuse their expenses or office to force by elections so they can re-test their mandate. See point D below.
• This Party will reform the House of Lords into a part-elected Senate. 200 elected Senators will sit alongside 100 Peers, 12 Law Lords and the Bishops. The most interesting and sensible idea in their policy in this area – see point B below

BNP
• Abolish the "Human Rights Act" which has been imposed on this country through the European Union, and which is nothing but an excuse to prevent British laws stopping the scroungers of the world parasiting off this nation. NO – its an attempt to try and make sure that everybody’s rights will be respected and, amongst other things, bigoted fascists can’t trample on minority groups.
• Abolish "anti-discrimination" laws which prevent people from making a free choice. NO – again they protect minorities, they don’t restrict choice.
• Abolish all restrictions on traditional free speech; common law provisions against incitement to violence are the only proper limits in a free society. In order to enable the BNP to make dangerously inflammatory speeches at the expense of BRITAIN’s minorities.
• Reject ID cards, intrusive surveillance and the retention of DNA samples of the innocent. Jumping on the bandwagon started by others, but shows nobody can be wrong about everything.
• Introduce an English parliament within the United Kingdom. Couldn’t care whether this happens or not, as long as it doesn’t feature representatives of the BNP
• Introduce citizen-initiated referenda whose outcome is binding on Parliament As observed with UKIP above, can’t see this working.

Further Thoughts

A) PR for the House of Commons – The Lib-Dems, Greens, and late in the day, Labour, all favour reform of elections to the House of Commons. The differ over the system, the Lib Dems favour Single Transferable Vote, Labour the Australian Alternative Vote System (which isn't actually proportional) and the Greens don’t specify. It’s something I’ve been in favour of for a long-time – the fact that a party can win an overall majority with under 40% of those who vote is ridiculous! Furthermore, Westminster needs shaking up and a system which compelled more co-operation between parties would only be a good thing. As to the different systems, I would favour something that both maintained the constituency links, but also more fairly related to the votes cast. The Additional Member systems used in Wales and Scotland strike a good balance in this respect, although can be a bit confusing for voters and might be unwieldly on a larger, UK-wide scale without either greatly increasing the number of MPs or the size of constituencies. Out of a choice between STV and AV, STV seems more representative and would shake up the system in better ways, I think.

B) House of Lords reform. – Labour, The Greens and UKIP all make mention of this. UKIP provide the most details with an interesting balance between elected and life-time members. The House of Lords needs reform, without question. It is such a mess of hereditary and political appointments, with each successive government trying to load up the benches with their own supporters and a peerage sometimes being a reward for favours done to the government. That said, the strength of the House of Lords is that, not being elected, they are able to take a longer term view than the commons. However, it is reformed, it’s important that this isn’t lost. Elections would be welcome, but maybe not on the same timescales as the commons.

C) Decentralisation. – The tories and Labour talk of decentralisation and greater power locally as a solution to the ills of modern government. It’s hard to argue with giving local people more say over their communities. In practice, though, this means giving more power to local government, unless you go with UKIP’s dubious local referenda idea. One question is whether the councils will also be given the resources to really address local needs and ambitions properly, or this merely a combination or PR and hand-washing by the big two (You can’t blame us, that’s a local government responsibility). Another point is that, in general, far more people vote for Westminster than their local council. Many treat council elections as a referendum on the central government. Surely we are voting for a central government in order for them to govern centrally in some respects. Of course, there are advantages to being able to have some local control, but sometimes I feel like decentralisation is promoted as far more of a cure-all than it would be in practice.

D) Accountability, Re-calling MPs – Common call for greater accountability (Conservatives, Labour, Lib-Dems ,Greens and UKIP) and given the last few years, its hard to argue with that. The tory policy here lacks detail of what this mean. Labour, Greens and UKIP all support the idea of MPs being recalled by their constituents. The Greens don’t seem to be offering any limits on this, which I would see as a recipe for chaos, especially for MPs with narrow majority, if their government was struggling a bit. Labour and UKIP would favour this only where the MP is guilty of wrong-doing and parliament has failed to act. Which is the key issue which makes this no more than a vote-catching gimmick to try and cash in on the expenses scandal backlash. We elect MPs to govern the country, surely we should be able to trust them to regulate themselves. If they are found guilty of wrongdoing parliament should be able to act against them. If it doesn’t, vote them all out at the next election. Interestingly, only the Lib-Dems advocate increasing the power of parliament to vet itself and the government. I like this idea more than the more direct accountability to the electorate by recall of MPs – we elect them to be fit to govern, they should be able to do a better job of policing themselves than they have recently. Yes, this shows the system needs shaken up, but we hold them all accountable at the ballot box on May 6th, so let’s use that opportunity and then give those who are elected the chance to get their house working properly.

Summary.

None of the policies particularly grab me. If I had to rate them, it would be as follows:

1. Lib-Dems – not perfect, but seems the most solid and reasonable ideas to actually produce a reformed, but working parliament.
2. Greens - more on the basis of how much I actually trust them to try and reform than any details of the policy.
3. Labour – Not sure they’d do anything if they got in, but they are at least saying some of the right things.
4. Conservatives – as with Labour, but saying less of the right things.
5. UKIP – little to recommend this, but little to actually offend this time.
6. BNP – offensive, reactionary drivel.

Next up - the economy.