MAJOR PARLIAMENTARY
AND ELECTORAL REFORM
PEOPLE EVERYWHERE WANT MORE DEMOCRACY, NOT LESS !
OUR POLICIES
THE HOUSE OF LORDS ABOLISHED
The idea of an unelected House of Lords sitting in judgement on the decisions of an elected chamber is fundamentally anti-democratic, and a partially or fully elected House of Lords would duplicate and undermine the primacy of the House of Commons.
MPs TO BECOME SENATORS AND SIT AS A SINGLE CHAMBER LEGISLATURE ("THE SENATE") IN THE CURRENT HOUSE OF LORDS
This will significantly reduce the time a bill takes to make its way through parliament enabling and encouraging more responsive policy-making from government. The greater grandeur of the chamber of the House of Lords is also more befitting a nation's elected representatives than the sterile plain green benches of the House of Commons.
SENATORS ELECTED BY PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
500 Senators to be appointed by political parties in direct proportion to their percentage share of the national vote at general elections — each party securing the right to appoint one Senator for every 0.2% share of the vote. The votes of the two-thirds of the electorate in non-marginal constituencies will finally count!
VOTES IN PARLIAMENT ABOLISHED
Debates, but no votes, held in parliament, so that minority governments can still implement their manifesto commitments without needing to form coalition governments and agree secret 'backroom deals' with other parties. This will enable the party with the greatest number of votes and winning the general election, to subsequently get their full agenda through parliament even as a 'minority' government. Democracy means meaningful votes for the electorate — not necessarily votes for elected representatives.
This measure would also end the undemocratic practise of 'rebel' MPs' standing in their constituencies on one manifesto platform and then voting against important chunks of it once at Westminster. It would also bring to an end the undemocratic absurdity of opposition parties voting against proposed legislation they actually agree with!
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS TO BECOME "THE CITY COUNCILS' CHAMBER"
— where City Council Leaders (unelected) sit each month to pass non-binding motions raising awareness of any unintended consequences of government policy and highlighting any practical difficulties with policy implementation.
... Governments Must Also Be Prevented From Getting Elected On One Basis and Then Governing On Quite Another...
For e.g., Labour in 2005 elected on the promise to hold a referendum on the (EU's) Lisbon Treaty but then not holding one! Or the Conservatives winning the 2016 EU Referendum constantly spouting 'take back control' rhetoric, only to seek to effectively keep us in the EU after the vote! This is to make a mockery of the entire democratic process.
Britain's new written constitution will therefore make party manifestos a legally-binding contract between government and the governed. Governments will only be able to bring forward legislation to enact significant policies which they have previously explicitly declared in their pre-election manifesto. Any other significant new policy will need to be submitted to a referendum for approval by the electorate.
The UK Supreme Court — as guardian of the constitution — in consultation with the Electoral Commission, will determine which policies are caught by these measures. In adjudicating a possible infringement, extensive reference will be made to all relevant party publications and public pronouncements made during the election campaign.
IN THIS WAY, POLITICIANS OF ALL PARTIES WILL BE MADE TO KEEP THEIR ELECTION PROMISES.
... and If Britain Is Ever To Have A Meaningful Democracy, Mainstream Broadcasting MUST Be Politically Impartial ...
For many years, nearly every time a politician from ANY party appears on TV or radio, they are hardly allowed to utter more than a few words before being rudely interrupted by a presenter and subjected to an unreasonably hostile line of questioning.
Even during general election campaigns, apart from a few special televised debates (deliberately arranged as shouting matches) the public scarcely get to hear from the politicians direct in daily news coverage at all ! Instead, the voting public is spoon-fed the journalists' 'reading' of events — with the weather or even the transport or hospitality arrangements provided for the journalists often accorded special political significance! And instead of sensible, solid coverage of the crucial details of the parties' policies, the electorate is fed a constant diet of blatherings about the largely irrelevant personality traits of party leaders. Unbelievable!
The broadcast media therefore stand guilty of both failing to cover politics adequately and honourably and of turning the general voting public against their elected politicians — encouraging a destabilising general discontent with democracy itself and a widespread, corrosive political apathy.
Without a single vote to their name, the broadcasters have also, for decades, and whilst loudly protesting their impartiality, relentlessly sought to influence the public 'heart and mind' according to their own political and cultural beliefs. This illegitimate, undemocratic power must be removed. Permanently.
The constitution will therefore establish a role for a powerful Media Commission to ensure that mainstream broadcasters :
(1) fully and accurately inform the British public about significant political issues
(2) give scrupulously impartial coverage to the main political parties, and give airtime to parties in proportion to the number of their Senators, and
(3) broadcast output across all programme genres that both respects and represents the opinions held by the wider general public.
THESE FEW SIMPLE REFORMS WILL FUNDAMENTALLY AND PERMANENTLY ALTER THE DYNAMIC OF BRITISH POLITICS. ANY GOVERNMENT DELIBERATELY IGNORING PUBLIC OPINION IN ORDER TO PURSUE ITS OWN UNDEMOCRATIC AGENDA WILL BE QUICKLY BROUGHT TO HEEL — AND WITHOUT UNDERMINING OUR FAMILIAR AND SETTLED PARTY-BASED SYSTEM.
OTHER PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS
PARLIAMENT
Fixed-Term 5-Year Parliaments
The government of the day should no longer be allowed to give itself a massive 'home field' advantage by deciding precisely when they would like to go to the electorate. Fixed parliaments of 5-year duration should therefore become the norm.
The Formally Appointed 'Opposition' Abolished
The government and minority parties will inevitably disagree about many things, and much of that is a good thing, but building confrontation into the very system by formally appointing the 2nd largest party to a place of 'Opposition' can surely only encourage an unconstructive mindset of opposition-for-opposition's-sake.
Arcane and Artificial Parliamentary Procedures Abolished
The current prominence given to the Speaker in the House of Commons and House of Lords is also undemocratic — sitting on massive chairs at the very centre of both Houses regularly scolding and patronising speakers like some bogus 'supreme' authority. It is they, not the people's representatives that should learn to keep their place. In a REAL democracy, it is the words of the people's representatives that matter, not those of a mere debate-umpire. Neither should the MPs be expected to constantly 'speak through the chair' as though not entitled to speak to subject or person directly.
We will therefore reform debating procedure so that the Speakers in both reformed Houses are dressed more normally and sit on smaller, less prominent chairs to the side (and not the front) of proceedings. The ridiculous titles and fancy dress of other parliamentary officials will also either be abolished completely or have their absurdity factor significantly reduced.
Lobbying
A compulsory register of lobbyists and advisers established, so there is transparency, so the public can know who is lobbying whom for what. Other countries have a register — e.g. USA and Canada.
FULL NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY
The principle of FULL democratic accountability means there must be NO surrender of ANY sovereignty for ANY reason to ANY institutions not FULLY subject to the UK parliament at Westminster.
Britain's commitment to international agreements, conventions, treaties, deals or protocols will therefore be restricted to purely intergovernmental co-operation.
The following agreements in particular will be renegotiated or modified to remove ANY and EVERY transfer of sovereignty away from the UK parliament at Westminster :
- Any deal, series of deals, protocols, conventions or understandings with the EU (including the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, i.e. the Brexit Deal), or with other regional Partnerships or Unions (such as the Union for the Mediterranean or the African Union).
- Any obligations arising from UN institutions or conventions, from the International Criminal Court, Human Rights Legislation, the Environmental Treaties agreed at Kyoto and Paris, or agreements related to 'sustainable development' or 'climate change'.
- Any democracy-diluting trade deals similar to the (withdrawn, draft) Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TIPP)— which grant non-UK courts powers of jurisdiction over a wide range of issues associated with trade, so have the capacity to become EU-lite (without the political institutions).
Even democratically-elected governments have no right to determine policy beyond their own term of office (as that prevents future democratically-elected governments — and more importantly, future electorates — from making changes). The constitution will therefore also include an amendment restricting UK governments' ability to agree international trade deals and sign international treaties to the period covered by their own term of office.
THE MONARCHY
A REDUCED ROLE FOR THE MONARCHY
The British Monarchy is a much-loved national institution and an invaluable international public relations asset for this nation and, to this day, its popularity and influence continue to reach out across the world. The hard-working royal family members themselves hold a special place in the heart of millions of Britons and bless countless thousands of ordinary people each year by being present at important civic occasions and regularly awarding honours to people at Buckingham Palace. LONG MAY THE ROYAL FAMILY CONTINUE.
However, this nation has long been a parliamentary democracy with the ultimate power of the land residing with democratically-elected politicians and not with the monarchy. Yet this fact is denied in the ceremony attending the state opening of Parliament and the respective grandeurs of the official Royal and Prime Ministerial residences. In this, as in so many other areas, symbolism does matter, and the symbolism inherent in the ceremonies and procedures of government should recognise and honour what the reality of the situation is — that it is Parliament, and much more importantly, the will of the British people it represents, that is supreme in matters of governance in Britain.
WE THEREFORE PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING REFORMS :
The Monarchy Completely Removed From All Political Involvement In Parliament and The Passage of Bills.
This should really have been done long ago and would merely bring the constitutional arrangements into line with long-standing modern-day reality — the Royal Assent of Bills being automatic, the content of the Queen's Speech at the State Opening of Parliament being that of the government of the day and significant royal speeches are first cleared with the government.
Highest Royal Titles Restricted To Prince and Princess
This would reflect the reduced political and constitutional role of the royal family and prevent even the symbolic ascendancy of a 'King' or 'Queen' over the people's representatives.
The Privy Council, Privy Councillors and the Royal Prerogative abolished
The abolition of the monarch as head of the constitution makes the exercise of extended royal influence through the Privy Council and the Royal Prerogative redundant. Democratically-elected leaders should also NOT be appealing to any ancient royal forms of influence in the exercise of any of their powers — their 'right to rule' being derived from the equality and fairness of the ballot box.
Buckingham Palace to Become the Official Residence Of The Prime Minister
The grandeur and White House-esque appearance of Buckingham Palace is a much more fitting residence for the Head of State and people's democratically-elected representative of one of the largest economies on the planet. The significantly larger accommodation would also make entertaining significant numbers of guests much easier. The royal family would continue to own several appropriately impressive castles and large estates.
Our proposals for reform of the monarchy will therefore see the democratically-elected Prime Minister duly installed in the 'British Whitehouse' of Buckingham Palace — rather than tucked down a side street in a terraced house at No 10 !!
This will in turn free up Nos 10, 11 and 12 Downing Street for occupation by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th-placed parties at the general election — from where they will be able to campaign for their respective national referendums, hold press conferences and implement any winning referendum outcomes.
A New Royalty-Neutral National Anthem
The current national anthem with its royalty-only focus and depressing tune is surely in need of an update. We will hold a national competition and referendum on a more relevant and uplifting anthem — one retaining an appeal to God (seeking His blessing upon Britain as a whole, not merely the Head of State) — and celebrating, truth, democracy, fairness and freedom.
The Oath of Allegiance to the Queen Abolished
It is not the Royal Family that MPs have been elected to serve but the people and the country. A revised oath will make this apparent.
The Monarchy to Be Completely Self-Financing
As befits their special status, the royal family should be exempt from all taxes. However, the present size of the royal estate, currently worth several billion pounds and covering over 350,000 acres of agricultural land should surely be reduced. We propose a reduction to £1 billion pounds and 50,000 acres which should be sufficient for the royal family to be completely self-financing. Maintaining the Royal Family at taxpayers expense via The Civil List will therefore be abolished.
The Royal Yacht To Be Reinstated
If individual business tycoons can have yachts then why not a nation's Royal family — particularly as the ship serves as an invaluable home-from-home and excellent public relations base when the Royal Family undertakes trips abroad of great importance to the nation. In consultation with the royal family, a new royal yacht should therefore be commissioned — to be financed from the sale of surplus royal land.
LOCAL COUNCILS
[ OUT OF RESPECT FOR DEVOLUTION, THIS POLICY WOULD ONLY APPLY TO ENGLAND, SO WILL BE DETERMINED ONLY BY ENGLISH VOTES. ]
A REDUCED ROLE FOR LOCAL COUNCILS
The current incomprehensible, multi-tiered bureaucracy needs to be replaced with a simpler, flatter, more consistent system.
Local Council Elections Abolished : Local Councils Becoming Simple Branch Offices Of Central Government
This will stop the endless 'buck passing' between central government and local (opposition party) administrations. It will also align the constitutional role of local councils with long-standing political realities : with the vast majority of local council funding and policy determined by central government anyway, and only a relatively small number of people bothering to vote in local elections.
The essential scrutiny function within local government will be maintained by :
- The City Councils' Chamber
- New Senatorial Powers of Scrutiny
- The ability of opposition parties to call national referendums, and
- A newly-created Commission for Equality of Access To Public Services.
All Senators Granted Go-Anywhere, Ask-Anyone-Anything Powers Of Scrutiny Across National and Local Government
— the Senators to have go-anywhere, ask-anyone-anything powers of scrutiny across all local councils, all local government-funded institutions and all local offices of central government departments.
All evidence given to Senators to be given under oath and any local government official giving dishonest, incomplete or deliberately misleading evidence will be liable to summary dismissal and subsequent prosecution. Senators will be able to raise issues of concern both locally with council officers and nationally in parliament.
Most Existing City Councils Retained and Most District Councils and Larger Town Councils Retained and Made City Councils
— but with the councils operating as single-tier branch offices of central government, implementing and administering locally all policies for which central government departments are responsible. The total number of city councils to be approximately 400 (similar to the present number of local councils).
Most Town Councils and ALL Parish Councils, County Councils, Combined Authorities, Mayors (Elected and Unelected) and Elected Police Commissioners Abolished
— their functions and responsibilities being transferred to city councils.
City Councils, As Part Of Central Government, 100% Funded From General Taxation
— removing all the blurred lines of accountability, with all overspending, inefficiency or poor service-provision by the local council directly attributable to either policy directions set by the (central) government of the day or subsequent policy implementation by local councils.
The Abolition of All Local Council Charges
By charging a single flat-rate for an increasing number of essential services from parking to the removal of large items of furniture, councils are operating a regressive charging policy that penalises the less well-off. By charging at all, they are making taxpayers pay again for council services that should already be funded from taxation.
City Councils To Have The Same Departmental Names As Central Government Departments
There must be almost as many departmental structures and names in local government as their are local governments. Again, this state of affairs means that most people scarcely know which department is responsible for even the most basic local services. This shouldn't be. All local governments should therefore be required to have identical department names to those in central government, making them the same across the entire country.
The Award Of Council Contracts To Be Awarded Transparently And As Widely As Possible Between All Competent Local Businesses
Local councillors becoming councillors primarily for personal business advantage must be made a thing of the past, and not by prying into every aspect of their business affairs. The award of every council contract must simply be made completely transparent. This could be achieved by inviting any local businesses that want to be considered for council contracts to register with the council to establish their competence for a particular type of contract. The council would then set the price it is willing to pay for a particular contract and completely randomly (perhaps by reference to the following week's lottery results!) determine the contract winner.
The council would make every effort to break contracts up into as many separate units as possible, enabling as many local businesses as possible to benefit from the council's purchasing power.
Businesses qualifying for inclusion in this process must all be business located in the city area concerned — this would give a significant encouragement to firms in search of council contracts to locate much more evenly around the country, rather than the present over-concentration in the South-East.
Councils Required To Respect the Privacy of People Accessing Their Services
Councils should be prohibited from demanding the answers to intrusive personal questions just to access their services — e.g. demanding names from all callers just making a general enquiry. Council departments will also be prohibited from routinely recording calls, since although in a few cases this can help establish false benefit claims etc. it necessarily creates a 'Big Brother' atmosphere for everyone else just wanting to have a civil conversation with their local council. The councils are there for the benefit of the citizens not the other way around, and council telephone procedures must be made to reflect that fact.
Council Decision-Makers Required To Be More Accessible By The Public
Incredibly, in recent years many councils have begun employing the tactics of the 'sharp' businessman, spiv and fraudster by putting an intercepting layer of receptionist staff between those responsible for the decisions affecting the public and the public themselves. Having left message with anonymous council bod (and often after being required to divulge all manner of unnecessary personal information themselves), the public are then expected to go away quietly and twiddle their thumbs and wait for days or even weeks until someone from the relevant department decides to contact them. If not, the hapless members of public must repeat the same process all over again. This is not accountable, responsive local government.
We will require all local council departments to deal directly with those they are paid to serve — just as they always used to do. Councils managed to do it then, they must learn to do it again now.
All Councils To Have A Staffed Out-Of-Hours Emergency Number
At present many councils have out-of-hours emergency numbers that require members of the public to leave messages and wait for someone from the council to ring them back. This isn't a true emergency service and is not an adequate level of service provision. We will require all councils to have a proper emergency contact number, where members of the public are able to immediately and directly talk to a responsible officer of the council 24/7.
Review of Council Website Design
Although there are many excellent council websites these days, far too many still make it hard to find answers to obvious questions about basic services — such as bin collection times, etc. Councillor details are also very often difficult to find. This is not good enough. We will require all councils to have professional quality websites that meet obvious standards of usability.
We will also prohibit all public websites from only offering visitors a restricted, controlling, corrupting choice of either 1) 'agree to the change or request we are making' or 2) tell a lie — by forcing visitors to click on 'I can't do that now/remind me later', with the option to just say 'NO, I do not agree / I do not wish to do that at all' entirely absent).