Some issues under discussion

Many matters have been raised within the Party, on an incredible variety of subjects, and many proposals have been put forward. The issues featured here are ones which are pertinent to the need to increase the level of democracy in the UK. They are also ones on which there is a high level of agreement within the Party. It must be noted, however, that they are not committed Party "policy": all members remain free to make up their own minds on all issues at all times.

(1) A democratic House of Commons

In parliamentary elections we have to worry about our votes being "wasted", because our chosen candidate comes third or worse. So there is much "tactical voting", in which people vote not for the candidate they want but for the one most likely to defeat the one they don't want. This is a disgraceful distortion of democracy. The solution is very simple: introduce preferential voting, i.e. ranking candidates in order of preference. This eliminates "wasted" votes and the need for tactical voting. It also ensures that the winning candidate at least has the acceptance of 50% of those voting, whereas at present 30% can be enough.

There is a strong case for having bigger constituencies. Firstly, there are too many MPs: the number should be reduced to no more than 400-500. Secondly, we should combine some current constituencies to create multi-member constituencies. This can be expected to give us a better (more equitably representative) range of MPs, and to offer a fairer reflection of party support.

Political parties often prefer a different solution, whereby representatives are chosen in proportion to the votes cast for different political parties. This requires the production by each party of a list of candidates in their order of preference. So that choice is taken away from the voters, and the parties are made even more powerful. Moreover, independent candidates are severely handicapped under such a system. An acceptable voting system must have no party lists.

Attached is a paper "Electoral reform: PR v. STV" which addresses some of these points in more detail.

(2) Less corruption

Clearly steps are needed to ensure that MPs can be trusted to behave with all the integrity and honesty that we have a right to expect from people who should be our most respected public servants.

Any expenses paid to MPs should be in accordance with fair, clear, know rules and (as now seems to be necessary) subject to independent regulation and scrutiny.

MPs should of course be guaranteed an income sufficient to enable them to live in comfort, and to concentrate on the job, free of financial worries and distractions. Part of the reason for recent problems is claimed by some to be that their salaries have been depressed on the understanding that they can make it up on expenses. So give them a proper income. But note that not all of them treat it as a full-time job. And note also that many of them have substantial income from other sources. So perhaps, rather than paying them salaries, we should give them appropriate tax credits to ensure that their income is raised to a suitable level and to pay them nothing at all if it is already above that level. And something similar might apply to any pension paid to ex-MPs.

Even more seriously, there have been cases of MPs receiving payments or other inducements to lobby or raise questions on behalf of commercial organisations. Clearly, this is, and should be, regarded as a very serious criminal offence. On the other hand, do not party "whips" also use threats and promises to induce MPs to follow the party line? Should that too not be regarded as a criminal activity, deflecting MPs from their duty to act as honourable and independent representatives of their constituencies? Particularly where the party line is contrary to undertakings made at the time of election.

(3) A democratic House of Lords

We have moved from having membership of the House of Lords being inherited to members being (largely) appointed by government. We are now hearing increasingly loud proposals that the Lords be elected, on the grounds that the current system is undemocratic. It is not easy to see how it is significantly less democratic than having the Prime Minister chosen by the majority party in the Commons, and all ministerial appointments made by the Prime Minister, an arrangement to which objections are almost inaudible. Nor does it feel like a major advance in democracy to have the Lords elected in the same undemocratic way as the Commons, with the process dominated by the same political parties with which most people are so fed up, and with candidates who are possibly even less able than those who go for the Commons, and with voter turnout possibly even lower than for Commons elections.

So why is election turnout so low? People are just not interested in politics, it is said. But they are! It is true that they are slow to participate in electoral processes as currently constituted, for all sorts of reasons. It is true that they are not interested in political parties, for which they have little respect, and which they join in ever decreasing numbers. But they are much more deeply and passionately interested in the way the country is run than any recent election might indicate.

What we need for the House of Lords is something fresh and truly democratic, something which will revive the interest and involvement of the population in the supervision of the government which preumes to rule over them.

Note that, although people are not joing political parties, they are joining other things, and in greater numbers than ever. They join and subscribe to organisations which, unlike political parties, represent their concerns and interests: Automobile Association, National Trust, Greenpeace, Oxfam, Red Cross, NSPCC, Ramblers, RSPB, ... the list goes on and on. If we want a House of Lords which truly represents the interests of the nation, why not let the members of all substantial organisations of this kind appoint a representative? Then you really might have a chamber which people care about, while at the same time bringing all sorts of sectional interests and special knowledge to bear on all prospective legislation.

This is not a new idea, but has been raised many times in recent years. However, it never seems possible to get political parties, and thus the governement, to take it seriously. But how could they? It would clearly loosen their stranglehold on UK politics, and let the people in. How could they possibly want that?

See the attached paper "Reform of the House of Lords" for a fuller presentation of the proposition.