By Jessica Asato / @Jessica_Asato
This weekend Progress launched a Labour campaign for a Citizens’ Convention signed by over forty Labour activists, politicians and academics including Brian Brivati, David Marquand, Martin Linton, Stephen Twigg and former MP Anne Campbell. The idea of using a Convention to determine the next stage of constitutional reform is not a new one, in fact it has been suggested that Peter Mandelson has been pushing for such a thing in Cabinet, and James Purnell came out in favour of the idea in his piece for yesterday’s Guardian. As Brian Brivati writes for Comment is Free, the politicians have failed to address the fundamental reforms this country needs, and it’s time to allow the public to take charge of creating the change Britain’s democracy so sorely needs.
But until now, there has been little attempt to put meat on the bones of what a convention would cover and how it might be achievable. We have argued that the convention should look at six areas:
* House of Lords reform
* Parliamentary reform including fixed term Parliaments and strengthening Select Committees and other ways of holding the Executive to greater account
* Funding of political parties
* Changing the voting system to more closely reflect voters’ preferences resulting in a referendum on the day of the next general election
* New routes into politics including primaries and directly elected mayors
* Greater devolution of power, accountability and funding to local government
We recognise that not everyone will agree with all of the areas for reform. Proportional representation, for example, divides the party in a way which transcends usual left-right boundaries. Many councillors are fearful of Mayors taking their power, and cite the cases of Hartlepool and Doncaster as evidence. Union activists worry that introducing state funding will weaken the Labour trade union link, while some party activists see the possible introduction of primaries as a threat to their sovereignty over party direction and selection of candidates.
But this misses the point of arguing for a Convention. A Citizens’ Convention could have the power to decide all or none of this - it’s unlikely, but they may opt for the status quo. It’s up to us to convince the Convention that our particular direction is the right one, but at the end of the day they will make the decision. We have reached a stalemate on constitutional reform precisely because no one can agree on specific aspects of the reform programme, and having come to this pretty pass, it seems sensible to allow a citizen-led body to find a way out of this mess.
It was a shame that Gordon Brown failed to use his interview with Andrew Marr this morning to announce a Convention or a strong package of constitutional reforms. We’ve had interventions from both David Cameron and Nick Clegg, but there’s nothing coming from government except for the idea that we might introduce powers of recall and that MPs privileges and expenses will be amended in the forthcoming Constitutional Reform Bill. It’s time to stop the piecemeal reform, which seems to be more about positioning than the principle of doing it. We’re looking for leadership on this issue, and in the next week, not the next few months. If it means that MPs lose their summer holidays to get it through Parliament, so be it. This cannot be about politics as usual. Politicians have a choice of leaving 2009 to be remembered for the shoddy, sordid scandal of expenses, or as the year when politicians showed some humility and let the people bust open our failed democracy.
Labour activists who support the idea can add their names to the list by contacting Jessica at jessica@progressives.org.uk by calling 07939 594 634.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
This talking shop of losers won't add to the gaiety of the nation that's for sure.
Nobody seems to have taken any notice of me on this site suggesting, rather than fixed term Parliaments, a requirement to have a General Election in the first 6 months of any year divisible by 5 (or 4) which I think would solve all the problems of fixed term Parliaments whilst having all the advantages. So maybe come the Convention nobody will take any notice of any other idea I, or anybody else, suggests, so what would be the point.
The reason nothings happened so far is the split over the Lords - scrap it or replace it? I look at the US, how one Senator put the freedom to take loaded guns into National Parks (so you can shoot the criminals there) into the Credit Card Rights Act because he knew Obama wouldn't oppose it, for my objection to a second house. Better to elect the lower house as the Germans do, half PR (like the Euro Parliament), half constitiuency based (presumably STV) with an advisory but impotent Lords.
The risk is that the Convention would be staffed with people likely to come to a certain point of view, or just waste loads of time. We need PR now so we can get re-elected as soon as the electorate begin to trust us again, not when the system starts to favour us again.
Although it could be made fun if the first act of the convention is the ceremonial debagging of the miscreant MPs. You never know those from public school backgrounds may even enjoy the experience.
I would love to hear Purnell on reform. After all his was part of an Oxbridge educated cabal who were parachuted by Blair in one time safe Labour seats. Others of this cabal were placed into high flying public jobs like the media regulator or got jobs as the go between Murdoch and No 10. Purnell pronouncements on this could potentially bring as many laughs as the last series of Curb Your Enthusiam. This would be worth the price of the ticket alone. However I will probably end up spending this instead (revealing my age) on the reformed Mott the Hoople.
Who would be in this "convention" and how would they be selected? Who would control it and how would they be selected? Who within the convention decide what issues were to be discussed, when votes were called and what recommendations would go forward and how would they be selected?
I know there are a number of MPS who have lost all moral and ethical authority but there is a reason why I wish my laws (including constitutional change) debated and voted upon by my elected representatives. Specifically I do not believe your "average man on the street" i.e. the window cleaners, shop assisstants, hairdressers and admin clerks to be in a position educationally, intelectually or experience wise to decide upon laws, constitutional reforms or anything else to be honest.
Sort the MP mes out, put in place a clear and supported method of controlling MPs and call an election. Once we have a house we can trust better than the one we have now then see about public consultation on democratic and constitutional reform.
The notion we get a large number of Sun and Mirror readers in a room to discuss the democratic system fills me with both horror and hilarity at the same time.
I'd also add, you don't have the time to get this through, it has no legislative authority, no cross party support and will be an almighty waste of time and distraction from the real isues than need sorting out quickly
On top of all that using the current majority of deeply despised and discredited government to force change upon it's likely successors in the lat few weeks of existence is exactly the lack of ethics that has got us here in the first place.
a citizen dialogue. would online be a good place to hold this? say in a 3 month period beginning in July?
Next, reform of MPs renumeration and expenses followed by a binding code of ethics.
That is it for now.
Any talk of PR or AV+ from Labour is going to look like more self-serving politics from a third placed party. As for constitutional reform, perhaps Labour should concentrate its effort on getting 60m people out of this economic mire before concentrating on 646 individuals.
We don't need conventions, charters, letters, meetings or committees, we need rid of the liars, spivs and thieves that Labour has become.
I'm in agreement with what a few others have said, a convention will result in a lot of talking, little agreement and naff all will get done.
The likelihood of getting all of the reforms mentioned through is zero and neglects the way that constitutional change evolves slowly and bit by bit in this country.
What's needed imo is for someone with a bit of authority to come out and say on a given topic -
This is what happens now
This is why it is wrong
This is what I propose
This is why I think it is better
Alan Johnson on electoral reform would be a great starting point, his proposals aren't perfect because no voting system is, but they'd be better than what we have now. Get the Lib Dems on board, referendum at the next general election and if it wins, Cameron has a problem seeing as he's so keen on power to the people.
Now back to the sun and I've decided on a Solero. It may not be perfect but it is better than no ice cream at all :)
Don't forget to put the expenses claim in....
I thank you.
http://e8voice.blogspot.com/2009/05/time-for-constitutional-convention.html
I'm keen on focus; simple, clear, and powerful law; and order an harmony. Britain lacks these things from the constitution downwards. This reinforces privilege and patronage which undermines people's confidence and social wellbeing. Old ways have brought people to this point so I'm not going to run them down or dwell on them but a positive, agreeable, and mindful change is about due. Now seems a very good time for that.
I'm pleased to hear Mandelson is championing this cause in cabinet, that Purnell grasps this necessary change, and Caroline Flint is strongly backing the people's direct involvement in the outcome. Whatever mistakes those guys may have made in the past and whatever some people may feel about them this level of heavyweight support and commitment is something I'd previously only hoped for.
I agree with sentiments expressed.
Having nailed the issue of MP's expenses this morning and provided a feel good with by offering transparecy in all publicly funded bodies (including the Beeb?)....think the PM is going to wait until after the June elections to make a big splash on the way forward re "giving power back to society".
Time is now for a "game-change".
I do think people want to be more self-confident and agreeable. I've commented on the stubborn broken economic fundamentals before, and how Britain could borrow the best from America and Japan instead of the worst. Now is a good time to take that leap of faith and embrace the new. The pain, often, is nothing what people suppose and having made the change people will wonder why they didn't do it before.