No need for a second chamber

We do not need a second chamber at all in a non-federal state. It lets MPs off the hook when it comes to scrutinising legislation and holding the Government to account. The incorporation of minor parties and Crossbenchers can be achieved within a unitary Parliament with both (it would have to be both) an American-style committee system and an Australian-style caucus system. Here is how.

There would be five hundred constituency MPs, elected by First Past The Post. At the same time, everyone would have two further votes, with Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions as the electoral areas. Those regions would be redrawn so that none of Yorkshire was in the North East or the North West, and none of Lincolnshire was in Yorkshire.

On one ballot paper would be party candidates. On the other would be candidates who were forbidden to be party members. On each ballot paper, we would vote for one candidate by means of an X. The top six in the first case, and the top four in the second, would be declared elected: a total of 120, giving 620 MPs in all. There would not be a BNP member among them, thanks to the Greens, the UK Independence Party, and either Respect (problematical, but manageable) or Socialist Labour (just the Old Labour Left). But there would always be 48 Independents: the Crossbench MPs.

Meanwhile, in the course of each Parliament, each constituency or regional party would submit a shortlist of two potential candidates to a binding ballot of every voter in the constituency or region. Likewise, each national party would submit a shortlist of two potential Leaders to a binding ballot of every voter in the United Kingdom. The next party to have a Leadership Election should take the lead on this.