Jon Bright (London, OK): Hat-tip to the ever useful Direct Democracy mail for a few of these links - starting with this Conor Burns article on Conservative Home. It's an extended look at why Tories have to, on average, get more votes across the country to get the same amount of seats as Labour (Tory constituencies generally have more voters in them, and these voters tend to turn out in higher numbers). The Tory problem is, essentially, that they have a lot of wasted votes in each election - far more people in their large constituencies are turning out than are needed to win them. Burns also blames the sluggishness of the boundary commission - reviewing once every 15 years, it can't keep pace with rapid population fluctuations in inner city areas.
What's interesting is that he begins the piece with a diatribe about the one system of voting that would fix these woes at a stroke:
I've yet to see a model of PR that does not in some way sever the constituency link or deliver almost perpetual power to a small party who act as eternal power broker. That power is corrosive to radical thinking and decisive action.
Our whole parliamentary system is based on the adversarial approach. The cut and thrust of debate and a clash of beliefs which exposes ill thought out and unsound ideas. A system underpinned by the simple dynamic that if you don't like the Government in office you can change it at the next general election
This is exactly the type of poor governance that OurKingdom in part exists to critique. New Labour has in part been defined by this commitment to "radical thinking and decisive action." The thinking: "Home Office not fit for purpose." The action: "Create Ministry of Justice in several weeks." Bam! Problem solved. No need for consensus, consultation, consideration - that would be weak, indecisive government - and there isn't any time for that, as the terrorists could strike at any moment!
This is a question about when democracy is needed. For Burns, it occurs once every four years or so: if you don't like the government, you change it at the next general election. In between these times, it should be all centralised power and steaming ahead with the next initiative. If there is a vote on something that looks like it's going wrong (MP's pay deals for example - which does, admittedly, feel like giving the turkey a vote on Christmas) then just abolish it!
Scotland is now giving us an example of an alternative way of 'doing' democracy: especially with Wednesday's proposals for direct elections to Scotland's 14 health boards. As Alan Cochrane notes when discussing the piece:
such a proposal was in the SNP's manifesto but as a minority government, the Nats can't do things by edict; only by consensus
The proposal for more democracy in the NHS is interesting. But more important is the nature of what has been announced: plans. Proposals. Suggestions. The SNP must now work on convincing a majority that they are a good idea to get them through - during which time, one hopes, they will be rigorously discussed, the flaws exposed, appropriate changes made. In England, the changes would have been announced in a speech this week as part of a "vision" package designed for media consumption, implemented by February, and be collapsing under the weight of another tranche of reform in March. The "cut and thrust of debate" that Burns sets so much store by would barely have a chance to get going.
I have nothing against radical thinking in principal. Nor decisive action. But when the two are combined in a system of governance, without any checks or balances, they can inscribe a breathless sense of near permanent revolution in public services and systems of government, when decisions taken in a considered and even consensus based manner would be much more likely to produce good results. If Burns cannot support PR for the amount of extra seats it might give the Tories, could he support it for that?
