I want a powerful new second chamber with, among other things, the same revising powers in relation to the devolved bodies as in relation to the House of Commons. I want the Parliament of the United Kingdom to avail itself, routinely, of its right to legislate across all policy areas in all parts of the Kingdom.
I want each of the 99 areas having a Lord Lieutenant to have six Senators, with each of us voting for one candidate and the top six being declared elected at the end. And I am increasing inclined to have a further six Cross Benchers elected in the same way by the country as a whole, because I am increasingly inclined to have the House of Commons elected by dividing the country into 100 constituencies of equally sized electorates, with each constituency electing six MPs in the same manner as above. Thus, there would be 600 Senators and 600 MPs. And after all, the means of electing the Senate would guarantee strong representation for natural communities on the ground.
There are many reasons for wanting these reforms. One is that they would strengthen the Union. This is obvious from the proposed powers of the Senate, and from the way in which Parliament would once again exercise its full and proper role. Furthermore, the manner of the Senate's election would make the North and South of Scotland, and North, Mid and West Wales, feel a lot better-represented than at Holyrood or Cardiff.
Constituencies for the election of the House of Commons might straddle the borders between Scotland and England, and between Wales and England; indeed, the law might even state that this should be done wherever possible. Part of Scotland, in particular, might form a single constituency with part or all of Northern Ireland.
The new parties that would emerge from these reforms might and should organise throughout the United Kingdom, i.e., including in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that all sections of the community there would vote for nationwide parties in elections to Westminster if they could, however they voted in elections to the devolved bodies or to local councils. (The Tories' lack of success there has been because of the failure of Labour and the Lib Dems to make it a proper contest, fully part of the national one.)
And since there would be at least six such national parties, would anyone still vote for the SNP or Plaid Cymru? Only separatist fundamentalists in the former case, and only language fascists in the latter. Mercifully, there are nowhere near enough of either of those to secure the election either of any MPs or of any Senators.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What are you doing to lobby for these reforms, apart from writing blog posts on them? I haven't seen you in any newspapers, for example. This needs to be much higher up the political agenda.
ReplyDeleteI read this blog, but I'm sure I'm in a minority.
If anyone would like to publish me (as has happened ocassionally in the past), then I'd be delighted to write for them.
ReplyDeleteActually, I am going to write this up and see if I can place it somewhere.
How do you hope to persuade people that this is a good idea?
ReplyDeleteI thought I'd try force of argument. Indeed, I thought that I had already started.
ReplyDeleteAt least six such national parties? Who? And what are the platforms of each?
ReplyDelete"Who?" Ordinary people the length and breadth of the land.
ReplyDelete"And what are the platforms of each?" We'd have to wait and see, although it's possible to guess, but that's all.
However, by the nature of the system, there would have to be at least six parties unless a sixth of seats went to Independents (which is possible, I suppose), and even then there would have to be at least five parties. Vote for one candidate and the top six get in, so it can't work out any other way.
So, you're calling for a system which deliberately entrenches one member from each of six parties in each constituency, and thus precisely equal parliamentary representation for perhaps each of those six parties, and almost certainly at least the top three.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, if I understand you correctly, nobody will ever have a parliamentary majority, even if they have over 50% national support. And parties whose parliamentary representation bears no relation to their national popularity, and with no obvious rationale over who gets to be the government and who the opposition.
Doesn't that sound just a bit silly to you?
No, it sounds entirely appropriate to this pluralist country, which has three major political traditions, each a very broad coalition in itself.
ReplyDeleteThe existing parties no longer reflect that reality, but this way they'd be gone, and parties which did, at least collectively, would replace them.
The Union would be strengthened. And many other good things would also happen. For example, people would start voting again, serious but not sinister figures would start standing for Parliament again, and the organs of civil society would once again feel it worthwhile to fund candidates and parties.
Why would I bother to vote if I knew - for certain - what the result was going to be before I started?
ReplyDeleteI mean precisely for certain. Not just "We all know Labour's going to get in however I vote", but "We all know a precisely equal number of Labour, Tory and Lib Dem MPs are going to get in however I vote".
Seriously, why should I bother? Why should anyone?
I don't think I can imagine a better system for entrenching a political class which never has to worry about getting voted out, while ensuring popular disengagement from the political process.
One of the most peaceful and prosperous countries on earth has been run much like this for donkey's years. In Western Europe but outside NATO and the EU, too.
ReplyDeleteThere has just been an electoral revolt there against the globalist threat to this happy state of affairs. Sadly, as has been pointed out on this blog, spearheaded by a billionaire globalist with factories in China. But even so.
Anonymous 5:37 PM is clearly a hopeful functionary of one of the creaking machines, probably the New Labour one. As you yourself would say, David, he's frit.
Anonymous 5:46 PM, whom I assume is also Anonymous 5:37 PM and whom I think that Anonymous 5:48 PM (use your names, people!) has bang to rights, there would have to be six parties.
ReplyDeleteBut there might well be eight, there could be 12, there might even be more. And then there would be Independents. Remember, six people per constituency would be bound to get in. Quite an incentive to stand, especially if deposits were replaced with a requirement of nomination by five per cent of the electorate, allowing in principle for up to 20 candidates at a time.
You don't seem to grasp that the parties you list, which are dying out anyway, would simply be killed off by this reform. They wouldn't be there anymore. They wouldn't BE anymore. They barely ARE now.
And I have long advocated each party's giving the whole electorate the final say in the choice between two potential PPCs (at constituency level) and two potential Leaders (at national level) in the course of each Parliament.