On FPTP

Labour MP Tom Harris gets it right. Read the whole post, but these bits stood out to me.

At least under FPTP, whatever its disadvantages, the party that’s elected has to implement the policies in its manifesto. And if it doesn’t, it can be kicked out. Not so with most forms of PR. Have you been listening to some of the arguments in favour of reform, particularly on the Left? Reform would mean a permanent centre-left coalition in this country, they say. But since when has permanent government by the same two parties been remotely democratic? This argument, to me, is the best reason not to go for reform. I’m a democrat. I believe that if we’re beaten by the Tories, they should form the government. It’s up to the electorate to decide if they want a change of government, not poitical parties.

But what’s wrong with coalition government? Nothing at all. In fact, I’m in favour of coalitions. We’ve had coalition government in this country for decades. Labour is probably a broader coalition than what already exists in some proportional European systems. Any party that can accommodate Frank Field (or me, for that matter) and John McDonnell and Dennis Skinner is a very broad church indeed. The same goes for the Tory party. Because FPTP forces parties to broaden their appeal, to be open to a far wider range of opinion than would be the case under PR. And our democracy is the better for it.

While I'm sympathetic to something like 3-member STV (like Ireland), the British way is wide coalitions of people with generally similar principles. Labour a belief in government solutions, Conservatives a belief in people and society making those solutions, Lib Dems......let's not go there, but they are possibly the widest coalition (where else would you have economic liberals and economic statists together?). A factioned political system is not the British way. I don't want to sound too dogmatic here about "the British way", but we don't do internal haggling - we put it to the voters, let them decide the path.

The coalition negotiations, behind closed doors, are a fantastic argument against PR, since it's exactly what would happen. The same politicians, the same minor parties in the coalition, the same ones you just can't get rid of.

I want a strong Parliament, that holds government to account, that has MPs who are actually accountable to constituents, a specific number holding one specific person to account. While something like 3-member STV might be a more proportional way while somewhat keeping to that, I think there are things we can do now that would make FPTP work better: boundary reviews that seem to be out of date and don't take it to account that we maybe have a 3-party system on our hands; open primaries; recall elections - that sort of thing. Then perhaps we can look at the accountability issue a few years down the line, see how it works, see how maturely people react to open primaries (judging by the moustaches on posters, I'm not optimistic) and so on.

So I'm not sure. Keep an open mind, see how things pan out, and don't do anything knee-jerk or silly (Labour supporting voting reform as they are about to lose an election is one such silly reaction).

On Parliament and the role of MPs

Labour MP Natascha Engel:

But we are moving in totally the wrong direction. I don’t know how many times I hear people demanding a more consensual style of politics, asking us to put aside political affiliations and work for the good of the people that elected them. This is only making it worse.

After the expenses scandal, this view has become even more dominant. Yet the vast majority of us were elected only because we stood for a political party. In fact, Parliament is predicated on the very existence of political parties. It’s how we organise ourselves.

But our system breaks down when our political parties are not ideologically distinct. Today, we define our differences by dividing lines. We ask a small group of people — a focus group — what they care about, and then ask them what they want us to do about it. That’s not politics. That’s marketing. It’s turning us into admen and PR agents.

The politics of focus groups makes politicians reactive. We should lead, persuade and inspire. We should argue for what we think is right, even if popular opinion is against us. Leadership is about taking risks, even if that means losing our positions as a result.

Politics and politicians need to encourage big ideas and promote different ways of organising our society. Parliament should be a forum for clashing ideas again. And politicians need to rediscover that being an MP is about more than doing a job. It’s about being in a privileged position to put into practice deeply held beliefs and ideas.

When we debate parliamentary reform this week, we need to talk about getting back to first principles. Papering over the cracks won’t do any more. We need to tear down the flock wallpaper and fix the plasterwork underneath.

Well written, well thought out piece - read it. I think she's right - Parliament should be a place where ideas clash, MPs should be thinkers, legislators - as well as people who hold the executive to account.

The "expenses reforms" miss the point. I've already posted about why the new IPSA quango is wrong - in fact it subverts democracy further. The problem in this country is that the executive and the European Union hold too much power - and MPs aren't really sure what their role is.

They should be scrutinising legislation, coming up with ideas themselves - Parliament, the mother of all Parliaments, should be where great minds come together to really get the best solution.

Shortlists

I'm aware I'm a bit late on this, but Cameron is looking at all-woman shortlists, imposed from the centre. This is not a conservative response to a problem!

Yes, there aren't that many women in Parliament. There are some very good women (Ann Widdecomme comes to mind) who got there by merit. The only female prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, got there by merit. That is the conservative way - the best person for the job gets it - an extension of Smith's division of labour surely.

That principle should be applied here. We want the best MPs, not the best female MPs, because they won't necessarily be the best MPs (they might, but it's not as likely). As well as this, isn't it quite insulting to women that they have to be given favours to gain seats over men?

ConservativeHome sums it up very well for me. It also mentions the central imposition of shortlists - it is up for the local association to choose a shortlist, and the candidate should be chosen in an open primary.

(By) election day

So all eyes on Norwich North later today as they decide who will replace Ian Gibson who resigned after he was deselected. The polls are suggesting a good win for the Conservative candidate Chloe Smith, but I think it'll be close and interesting - a good marker will be the turnout.

I'm not expecting minority parties to do too well, but I'm interested to see how well they do.

National Democratic Renewal Council

Gordon Brown's new MP regulatory quango. It sounds more like what you get when a military junta takes over in a banana republic for the transition to democracy than in a supposedly democratic nation.

Democratic renewal? It's ever so simple - call an election! You cannot reform politics without giving the people power.

How ironic that his solution to a problem of democracy is an UNDEMOCRATIC body chaired by an UNELECTED prime minister? The voters are the regulation; they just haven't been given the chance to regulate.

The Speaker must go

For too long he's been the defender of the Labour regime, ticking off MPs who ask fully legitimate questions but doesn't expect ministers to give an honest answer, or a relevant answer. He did not defend Parliament in the Damian Green case, and his behaviour towards MPs such as Kate Hoey yesterday was, to be honest, shocking.

He fails to represent or respect Parliament, and Douglas Carswell has tabled a motion of no confidence in him. I hope, for the country's sake, that it succeeds. I also like his idea of a secret ballot - this motion may end up in the hands of whips, but the election of a Speaker certainly shouldn't.

And read The Plan if you haven't already.

Cameron is showing some leadership

We'll have to see the result of this, but it's good to see David Cameron showing some leadership in the expenses row. Gordon's ducking it, the Speaker's pathetic, and before we get the Lib Dem revelations tomorrow to know that MPs are paying their expenses back is a good sign.

I'll be the first to check that they will be paying them back.

MP Expenses - Musical Guide

Brilliant.

The Budget: death throes of this government

The Budget this afternoon is an utter mess. The government think that they are helping, but they aren't. It shows so many reasons why governments, especially when left-wing, should not get involved.

The message of the tax rises is that if you are a wealth creator, stay well away. The 50% rate is just going to send our top businessmen, etc, to Switzerland, Monaco, Andorra..... In short-termist electioneering, the government has put short-term gain over long-term growth. They borrowed to the extremes, and now they want to please their core voters.

The real change should be a tax CUT, and a corporation tax cut to make our economy competitive and to give entrepreneurs an incentive. I certainly hope that Cameron and Osborne oppose this political rent-seeking.

As for the car scrappage scheme, it will help foreign economies not our own (BMW, Mercedes, Audi et al) and will cost a huge amount to the taxpayer.

Then the news that they are putting half a billion towards those noisy monstrosities that tend to end up where local people don't want them. Let private companies supply the demand (which is very low) and don't waste taxpayers' money on them.

He's also optimistic in his predictions. They are confident, but we aren't. Do you know what will make me confident? A change of government, with policies that give me confidence in the future. Cameron, sort it out.

Upholding Parliamentary democracy

Whether you agree with the Heathrow proposals or not, we should all agree that it is an absolute shambles that they will not be voted on by the UK Parliament, supposedly the supreme body of UK power, but instead will be forced through by ministers and quangos. This shows utter contempt for democracy and the voters, who elected MPs to represent them.

And I congratulate John McDonnell for his courage in expressing his beliefs of Parliamentary sovereignty. He was suspended as by Parliament's rules, but he deserves to be congratulated as he stood up to a government that clearly cares little for democracy.