The future of parliamentary democracy in Britain

The future of parliamentary democracy in Britain

15 Jun 2009

In the wake of the MPs' expenses scandal (May - June 2009), a panel of politicians and journalists discuss the merits and pitfalls of the current system of democracy in Britain - is the system rotten to the core, or was the expenses scandal simply a storm in a teacup? In a departure from the usual debate format, the seven panellists each present their views on the current state of affairs and suggest if, and how, the system needs to be reformed.

David Cannadine begins by to growing unrest with the government in Britain, fed by scandals such MPs' expenses and the 'cash for honours', as well as the perception that both New Labour and the Conservative Party are responsible for the economic crisis. Cannadine argues that this short-term outrage is not the basis on which to base long term reforms, and that this period of transition - in all likelihood from a New Labour to a Conservative government - is not the time for radical reform. He also runs through the possible parliamentary reforms - a written constitution, a second elected house, reform of the Lords - and suggests why it is unlikely that any of them will be implemented. Helena Kennedy agrees that the public is currently disillusioned with politics and politicians, as evidenced by low voter turnouts. Politicians, she says would have us believe that these low turnouts are down to voter empathy, but surveys reveal that people feel that their votes don't count and are frustrated at the homogeneity of the political parties. In this sense, the outrage caused by the expenses scandal is symptomatic of a deeper mistrust of politicians. Kennedy calls for a great public input in the political process in Britain, and a system of representation that allows people to feel that their voices are heard even when they do not vote for a majority party. Peter Oborne accepts the fact that there is something wrong with British politics but refutes calls for root and branch reform. He emphasises the significance of the expenses scandal, suggesting that it is indicative of a higher level of fraud and corruption in the House of Commons, and that the sackings in the wake of the scandal are token gestures by Gordon Brown and David Cameron. Oborne suggests that, in the short-term, we need to clean up British politics, by making sure that individuals who defraud the taxpayers are brought to account.

After a short break for questions, Vernon Bogdanor resumes the debate by citing public disillusionment as the reason for low voter turnouts in Britain, pointing to the fact that a large number of Britons regularly participate in voluntary activities and attend voluntary organisations - the problem is more people are members of, for instance, the National Trust or the RSPCA than all the polticical parties put together. Bogdanor suggests that this points to disillusionment with British politics, and calls for a more inclusive democratic system - one that does away with safe seats and makes more use of mechanisms such as referendums and primary elections. John Keane calls for a greater degree of 'monitary democracy' in British politics. He suggests that Britain has fallen behind other democracies in this respect, and cites the extra-governmental agencies used in other countries to keep parliament in check and crack down on fraud and corruption, such as the Australian 'Integrity Commissions' or Canada’s 2006 Federal Accountability Act. He parallels the current state of British politics to that of late nineteenth century America where public disillusionment at state corruption was high. But he also suggests that, like in that period of American history, positive changes can emerge from the public anger at the corruption of politicians; this will take a greater degree of public engagement with the problems, from journalists and citizens' assemblies, to blogs, and political satire. Referring again to the expenses scandal, Sir Malcom Rifkind suggests that new technologies - the internet and email - will make it easier for the public to scrutinise the activities of politicians, and calls for parliament to regain greater control over the government. David Aaronovitch refutes claims that the current parliamentary system is rotten and suggests that the furore surrounding the expenses scandal is more indicative of the antagonistic relationship between MPs and the population - we hate them, he claims, and they hate us. However, he still advocates a reform of the system, suggesting the need for the population to become more involved with electoral process, and delegating more responsibilities to a local level - he gives the example of giving budgetary control to school governors. This would compel parents to become more involved when mistakes are made.

At the end of the debate, chair Simon Jenkins asks for a show of hands for each of the main questions of the debate. First, is the current parliamentary system in desperate need of reform? And second, should we stay with a first past the post (FPTP) electoral system or change to proportional representation (PR)? In the first case, the audience vote narrowly in favour of reform, and in the latter, the audience favour a move to PR.

BUY THE DVD