Well it is according to this BBC News article. I can see where it’s coming from, as I certainly don’t feel like I had any say in the election of the current government. I voted, sure, and I voted for someone else, but what good did it do me? Nothing at all, as they continue to come up with and pass ridiculous laws and stupid policies (alongside the occasional good ones, I must give them that).
According to the article, the report on which it is reporting suggests that power needs to shift away from ministers to MPs, and from central to local government. Sounds good to me. We’re supposed to be a parliamentary system, so the continual emphasis on the Prime Minister and what the Prime Minister wants and the surprise evident in the reporting when he doesn’t get it mystifies me. The Prime Minister is not a dictator, not an emperor, most certainly not the King. I’m leaning quite heavily toward the notion that banning political parties might be a good move. Or at least banning party policies that force MPs to vote with the party line. Let each MP vote according to the best interests of his or her constituents, the people who in some way voted for him or her. Let each MP be more involved in his or her local constituency. Let it be felt that writing to my MP will actually get me some attention, that he or she will take notice of my opinion.
It also recommends a 70% elected House of Lords. That scares me in a way. If not done right, it could just be a puppet rubber-stamping chamber that approves everything the Commons vomit up to them. An elected House of Lords would have to be carefully separate from the Commons, their priorities different, their campaigning and affiliation nothing to do with the government. Perhaps we could supplement it with a randomly-selected sample of voters (well almost random, in some sense representative of the country as a whole, so drawn from the entire country and from a variety of backgrounds and communities), who are picked for say a year, and during that time are required to (and compensated for) weigh in on Acts which are about to be passed, giving extra opinion to be heard in the Lords’ debate on the subject. That would offer a direct line between the people and the upper chamber, but perhaps it wouldn’t work in practice.
Pipe dreams? Bit like true democracy itself, but if we’re going to be a representative democracy, can we at least feel like the people in charge represent us?
Another rambling random idea comes to me. Continue to have MPs for constituencies, but also have MPs for groups. They’d draw their support from votes nationwide, and sit in the Commons or maybe the Lords, or possibly both, representing issues or groups or causes which are particularly important to the voters at the time. Might be tricky to set it up right, but it could cause an interesting shift in the power structure.
Anything to stop the impression that Tony Blair can do whatever he wants and Parliament will automatically approve it. That idea is dangerous and needs to be stopped immediately.