James Graham (London, Quaequam Blog): For the past year I've been on the Lib Dem working group that came up with the proposals on constitutional reform which Ming Campbell launched today. It is the most radical and comprehensive package of reforms proposed by any British political party in the last 10 years.
The Lib Dems of course have always "said the right things" about constitutional change, but in recent years it is fair to say the party's demands for reform have been somewhat muted. In 2001 this was understandable: after a period of significant reform post-1997, there was an argument for leaving things to settle a bit. As such, our last policy paper on British governance, while strong on Parliamentary reform, was more circumspect in its demands for electoral reform and a written constitution.
By the 2005 general election, however, the country was screaming out for a political party that offered a clear alternative to Britain's political system - which had permitted an unexplained onslaught on our civil liberties and allowed the grave mistake of the invasion of Iraq. While the Lib Dems were vocally opposed to both, curiously they were reticent about saying why they had a solution in terms of democratic reforms that would at the very least make such tragedies much less likely. Of Charles Kennedy's 10 published priorities, not a single one was concerned with constitutional or democratic reform. Even the commitment to reform public services through greater autonomy and localism were sidelined in favour of simplistic slogans about centralised funding and targets.
This month, the reform package to be debated at Lib Dem conference will, hopefully, mark a sea change.
While the paper goes into much detail, for me the key proposals are an unequivocal commitment to electoral reform and the establishment of a constitutional convention. The constitutional convention process is particularly innovative, and is complementary to Unlock Democracy's Citizens Convention Bill introduced in the Commons by Julia Goldsworthy MP. At least 50 per cent of the convention's members will consist of member of the public selected by lot, and in addition to consulting widely, its work will be bookended by two referendums: one to authorise the process and a final one to ratify its recommendations.
This process is intended to ensure that the convention's work is as transparent as possible and that the national debate that will be needed to inform its work go wide as well as deep. It is also intended to be regime-proof. One of the main dangers we identified quite early on is that if there is a change of government while the convention is still working on its proposals, there will be a temptation by the incoming Prime Minister to simply scrap the process; having a public vote to authorise it in the first instance will make this difficult to do.
The party is also being quite upfront about its support for the Single Transferable Voting system. It is refreshing to have no more muddle about Lord Jenkins' proposals for a hybrid system which was intended as a fudge to appeal to the former Prime Minister and ended up pleasing no-one.
The proof in the pudding for Lib-Dems like me will be how much of these proposals end up in the party's next manifesto, and then whether the party will actually campaign on them. Many party campaigners will be keen to point out to Sir Menzies that there are no votes in constitutional reform. There is however a widespread perception that the political system is no longer working for the general public. And withthe other parties presenting themselves as reformers we have to show them what it means for real. The new, convention approach is eminently sellable. Will the party meet the challenge?
Moderator: James Graham has been shortlisted for the Liberal Democrat blogger of the year awards.
