The Tory leader writing in The Guardian? Have we entered a strange new reality? No, I think Cameron is so confident that the country is ready to ditch Labour that he's trying can embrace the left leaning Guardian crowd with his call for parliamentary reform.
His main call is for more distribution of power away from central positions and an acknowledgement that this has to be a philosophy present at all levels of political decision making. His first example is to give school placement powers to parents rather than local councils. Whilst I agree with the general principal of spreading power, I don't agree with his specific example and I don't believe that decentralisation is always the best thing to do. Asking parents to apply to schools on behalf of their children is a lovely idea for those that can get their head round the different forms and criteria they may be asked of. It is likely to lead to wider gaps between successful schools and unsuccessful ones – and wider gaps in the communities they serve.
I also believe that centralised frameworks can be a massive advantage to the people working in them and the people using them: look at the news stories about NHS postcode lotteries where one person can get live saving treatment, but a person 10 miles away can't. I also see this mirrored in my work. Previously, Local Authorities have had the power and responsibility to administer Student Support. This includes not just feeding the figures into a computer system and printing out the result, but also making decisions on things like estrangement. The NUS LGBT group recently released a report on estrangement – they found that some LAs were able to deal with requests effectively, work with appropriate evidence and provide a nice service. Some were asking students for a letter from their parents confirming the estrangement. We are moving to one organisation taking over the responsibility nationally, and for consistency at least, we should now be much better served. The balance needs to be struck.
His next proposal is to make councils responsible to the people rather than government targets. He proposes that councils should publish expenditure over £25,000 and hold referenda for “excessive” tax increases. He would also allow locals to insist on a local referendum with signatures from 5% of the population. While I still have a distaste for referenda from people power I conceed there needs to be some way of getting popular issues discussed, but am not convinced that bypassing the people we pay and elect to keep on top of the law, to understand widespread consequences and balance everything in favour of a referendum on just that isolated issue is the way forward.
He also intends to create a “general power of competence” which would mirror how our legal system currently works for individuals. Currently councils have the power to do what the government allows/tells them do, the “general power of competence” would allow councils to do whatever as long as it was legal – in effect “everything's legal except what we define here” rather than the European legislative model of “everything's illegal unless we allow it”. A good example of what might be possible under such a provision is Ken Livingston's Civil Partnership Register in London.
He goes on to talk about reducing the number of MPs. I'll confess to not understanding the need for this (but also seeing no logic with the current number). What I do want to see though is my MP as an MP. Not as a minister. Not as speaker. My MP should be holding the government to account – not forming it. If my MP is also a government minister I do not believe they can hold the said government to account. I do not believe they can represent their constituency. I want to see the separation of the house and the executive. I want to see my MP debating things. I want to see my MP free to vote and speak without fear of damaging her party patronage. My MP's duty should be to the people, not the party. David Cameron's attack on the way a bill is currently glanced at by parliament is well made. I watched the Equality Bill second reading. Of 646 MPs, there were a mere handful debating and then a sudden swarm for the vote itself. When the motion of no confidence in the speaker was laid, in order for there to be a debate and a vote, it needed government approval. This is not a parliament that can hold the government or itself to account. This is not the democracy I expect.
Cameron then goes on to attack Proportional Representation but only on the closed list basis. He completely ignores the idea of open lists, he ignores that currently we have no say over candidates the parties put up for us to choose between. He ignores the fact that smaller parties with genuine support are locked out of the political process. He instead claims that PR is based on a closed back room deal over the party list. An open list system (such as the Jury Team's) is possible (indeed, desirable if PR is to be the way forward). But for god's sake, we need rid of First Past The Post.
I don't understand the massive importance that people place on the constituency system. I don't feel a whole lot of sympathy with Warrington. I feel more connected to other groupings. The age of the internet has lead to communities forming and gelling in whole new ways. We're no longer confined by locality. I feel more affiliation with the queer community, with the Free Software Movement, with The Pirate Bay than I do with Warrington. For me the need to contact my local MP about issues that affect me is a handicap (more so if my MP were also a front-bencher I suspect). I think this needs to be looked at in more detail though, not dismissed out o f hand.
I hope we get a full debate on these issues. In Parliament, in the media, around the water coolers. The political malaise does reach further than the expenses row. A feeling of disillusionment has been hanging round like a foul smell for a long time – especially amongst the young. Voting turnout has been decreasing, the news has become more superficial and relying on government handouts and the belief that the public was not just ignore, but dismissed after huge marches against the war are all showing this. We need reform. Cameron's shown leadership here. Don't let him keep that. Others need to take up the mantle and run with it. Cameron is presiding over a party that is still deeply split over Europe*, still very much against equality and would still love to dismantle the welfare support we have for those in need. He's put on a lovely veneer, but please, don't mistake it for the real thing. We need to implement changes to our political system. But please, not with the Tories.
Alex
x x
* Take a look at what the chair of the York University Conservative and Unionist Association (I assume that's still the official name for the York [Campus] Tories) wrote about the upcoming elections (and Iain Dale's comments)
