Electoral Reform
There's been quite a lot of talk about electoral reform of late, and there's the possibility of it actually happening in some way or another, with the indecisive result in the General Election.
I've spent some time exploring the various options for electoral systems, and there's quite a lot of interesting things. However, I think a trick is being missed. At the moment, we have a half-reformed House of Lords, and a House of Commons that has some credibility issues. This seems like an ideal opportunity to consider the whole setup.
I've been a little dismayed at how conflagrated and confused three seperate concepts are - Parliamentary Representation, Government and Leadership (or, if you like, Premiership). Traditionally, the party with the largest presence in the House of Commons (i.e. the ones who have done the best at gaining Parliamentary Representatives) can form a Government, and also choose the Leader. The voter, in this system, is only influential over the first section - the representation. Specifically, they only have influence over the representative for their particular area.
Historically, this makes sense, and is in many ways quite natural. Each community votes for someone to send to parliament, and off they trot, to do the best job they can (or not - Isaac Newton I am looking at you). When communities are fairly disparate, and relatively homogenous, this works quite well.
It's not really suited to the modern world, though. People are less tied to their geographic community. Populations are less homogenous in any sense. The role of the leader has taken on increasing importance, because of his or her ability to contact and be seen by the whole population.
Is there not, therefore, some argument to be made for seperating the sections? This is how the US system works, and while it has its problems, in this respect, it makes for a cleaner and more clear-cut process. In essence, in the US, Government is in the hands of the President, but legislation, representation and scrutiny are handled by the Senate and Congress.
How could such a thing work here? Making the leader directly elected, and seperating them from the House of Commons would be a bold thing to do. It need not involve the dissolution of the monarchy. It would also be a stabilising thing to do - elections would be clearcut, and the mandate for the elected person to be the leader would be clear. It wouldn't, however, necessarily imply a mandate to do all the things they want - that would depend on the makeup of the Houses of Parliament.
Personally, I rather prefer non-presidential government - committee government, if you like, but I'm resigned to losing that battle. If I am going to lose it, though, I'd rather lose it properly. Let's elect our leader. Let's elect our representatives. And let's recognise that they may not be from the same party - and that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
I've spent some time exploring the various options for electoral systems, and there's quite a lot of interesting things. However, I think a trick is being missed. At the moment, we have a half-reformed House of Lords, and a House of Commons that has some credibility issues. This seems like an ideal opportunity to consider the whole setup.
I've been a little dismayed at how conflagrated and confused three seperate concepts are - Parliamentary Representation, Government and Leadership (or, if you like, Premiership). Traditionally, the party with the largest presence in the House of Commons (i.e. the ones who have done the best at gaining Parliamentary Representatives) can form a Government, and also choose the Leader. The voter, in this system, is only influential over the first section - the representation. Specifically, they only have influence over the representative for their particular area.
Historically, this makes sense, and is in many ways quite natural. Each community votes for someone to send to parliament, and off they trot, to do the best job they can (or not - Isaac Newton I am looking at you). When communities are fairly disparate, and relatively homogenous, this works quite well.
It's not really suited to the modern world, though. People are less tied to their geographic community. Populations are less homogenous in any sense. The role of the leader has taken on increasing importance, because of his or her ability to contact and be seen by the whole population.
Is there not, therefore, some argument to be made for seperating the sections? This is how the US system works, and while it has its problems, in this respect, it makes for a cleaner and more clear-cut process. In essence, in the US, Government is in the hands of the President, but legislation, representation and scrutiny are handled by the Senate and Congress.
How could such a thing work here? Making the leader directly elected, and seperating them from the House of Commons would be a bold thing to do. It need not involve the dissolution of the monarchy. It would also be a stabilising thing to do - elections would be clearcut, and the mandate for the elected person to be the leader would be clear. It wouldn't, however, necessarily imply a mandate to do all the things they want - that would depend on the makeup of the Houses of Parliament.
Personally, I rather prefer non-presidential government - committee government, if you like, but I'm resigned to losing that battle. If I am going to lose it, though, I'd rather lose it properly. Let's elect our leader. Let's elect our representatives. And let's recognise that they may not be from the same party - and that isn't necessarily a bad thing.