Gordon Brown’s deathbed conversion to the cause of electoral reform is surely one of the most cynical acts in modern British politics.

Don’t forget that Labour were elected in 1997 on a mandate to have a referendum on electoral reform, just as they were elected in 2005 on a mandate of a referendum on Lisbon.  What was one of the major stumbling blocks to holding a referendum on the Jenkins Report?  Why it was the steadfast opposition to reform of a certain Gordon Brown!  Could this be the same man who yesterday embraced the cause of reforming the electoral system?

Brown’s conversion to reform is an act of unprincipled political desperation.  He is looking to change the rules of the game because his team has fallen behind.  This is the last throw of the dice by a desperate Prime Minister.  It is not a serious case for political reform.

The 20th century was the century of political ideology. A century that was rife  with wars and domestic political turmoil. This was all the end product of ideological politics. Ideology, by its very nature, is divisive. It sets people asunder and negates the natural co-operative instinct in mankind. Politics in the 21st century must now abandon ideology. The future belongs to the politics of pragmatism. Politics in the 21st century must also move away from existing political structures and take democracy beyond parties and to the people.

There are many people in this country who would make excellent non-political candidates at election time. However these people are denied access to the electoral process because as individuals they lack the money and resources of political parties. So as a result, legislative power remains a preserve of political organisations, which are in turn, manifestations of vested interests. Thus parliament becomes an ideological battleground and the people are disenfranchised.

Therefore the state must make provision for individuals to participate on an equal basis at election time.

This could be done through grants etc, of course the state shouldn’t subsidise crank candidates but rather should set specific criteria for funding, each constituency could fund say two candidates. These could emerge from a non-political shortlist. We must take measures to ensure that we send people to parliament, eventually reaching a number equal to that of politicians, only then will the true meaning of democracy be realised.

For democracy properly understood is rule by the people and not rule by political parties.

We need an electoral system that ends the antiquated party political machines and instead allows non-political candidates into Parliament. Also all individuals should be limited to five years tenure of office. For too long career mongers have used Parliament for personal gain. This must end. The people of our nation should also be allowed regular referendums on single issue subjects.

We must reject the destructive ideological politics of the past and give power to the people. The 21st century calls for democracy. True democracy.

Posted by Administrator on behalf of Tony Makara

David Green (of Civitas), Douglas Carswell and Danny Finkelstein have taken up our suggestion of recall ballots for MPs.  

And I think Nick Clegg floated the idea last week too. Obviously there need to be safeguards – you couldn’t have a mad vendetta of ten people who try to recall an MP twenty times in a Parliament.

I think there probably needs to be a percentage of the local electorate who support the measure; a time limit on collecting signatures of support; and some way to stop repeated attempts at something which there is nomore than very limited support for.

But overall, bringing in a way to directly and more quickly hold an MP to account is exactly the kind of reform that should be enacted.  Imagine if all these expenses stories had come out in June 2005 – we’d have another 5 years until we could get rid of any of them… 

I’m not saying we’re nailed on to win.

But just as Francis Maude has been asked to run the preparing for Government programme, we ought to be prepared from Day One to ensure that all of our MPs are ready to work to enact our manifesto.

I haven’t checked the figures but I read somewhere that, say we win a majority of 60, 44% of all the parliamentary party will be first-time MPs.  That offers both great opportunities and the potential for some disasters.

The disasters include MPs not having offices, staff or the first idea of what they need to do in the House of Commons. They also include the possibility of a number of people who didn’t really expect to be elected (as with Blair’s landslide in 1997 when Alistair Campbell etc had no idea who many of the new MPs were) and so haven’t made any preparations to leave their jobs and move to London.

But the opportunities are myriad as well. Just the fact of having a whole load of new, fresh faces, keen to make their mark, will put a rocket under the way government works.  They will also hopefully be deeply aware of the responsibility they have to change the way that voters perceive politicians, to govern in a way that preserves what is good and removes what is not and to ensure that they avoid the mistakes made by previous governments and MPs. 

I’m hoping that those responsibilities are what will guide their behaviour.  I’m beginning to wonder, though, if we need a better way to hold our politicians to account than just elections every four or five years?  Are there other ways? Do we want to expand the www.theyworkforyou.com concept?  Do we have an equivalent of the recall ballot (famously used in California before Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected)?   Shouldn’t there be a way for an MP to be forced to stand down?  

Constitutional reform isn’t an interesting or a headline grabbing or even a particularly vote-winning area – but it’s one I’m increasingly convinced the next Conservative government is going to have to tackle.