Elections every year?

By Harriet Yeo

The row over MPs’ expenses rumbles on but it’s the debate on the whole system of parliament itself that is really challenging. If party leaders listen to the electorate these could be exciting times. We may finish up with a system that is regenerated and suitable for the 21st century and not the current make do and mend, cobbled together over centuries, like the many faceted central heating systems that I am about to rip out and replace. We might finish up with a fully elected second house, a scrutiny chamber that is elected and not full of ennobled retirees who have nowhere else to go and need to boost their pensions.

How we elect those second chamber members and the House of Commons members is now being debated the length and breadth of the country. The Lib Dems favour PR not because it is necessarily good for the country but it is good for them. The PR system that the Labour party uses for its European selections leaves it open to accusations of interference from the party and that is not really for the best bearing in mind what the voters think of all parties at the moment (what other system other parties use I am not sure of). First past the post is easy to use and the winner is clear. You could use the single transferable vote system but that is so complicated a system that anybody without a degree in political elections would not have much faith in the outcome.

We could have primaries, but anything that could add another layer to a selection would disenfranchise those without financial backing. One of the problems with the system at the moment is that ‘ordinary’ people are priced out of standing, they have to find leaflet and travelling costs and time off, even if your employer allows it, comes at a cost if it has to be unpaid leave. Union backing or a flexible, well-paid job are realistically needed so if you are a non union person who happens to be in a job on the national average salary where you can’t just ‘up and go’ to canvass the party members you have a bit of a problem.

Candidate selection is currenly different for each party, but to make things more accessible for the electorate perhaps there should be a standard procedeure across the parties. Should all those on the relevant panels have their details openly published? Should the number of potential candidates be the same for each party?

How the members of the House of Commons are elected though is really what the electorate are thinking about. So what about this? Elect 25% of the House each year. No party though would be able to sit on their laurels for three years and campaign for one. Although the PM could change annually the business of government should continue along a fairly stable path as the composition of the House would not have changed dramatically. A new party leader would be able to be endorsed or otherwise within a few months of election, even if only by 25% of the electorate. If a government did something deeply unpopular, the Poll tax or war in Iraq for example, the parties could be given a ‘wake up call’ one year and they wouldn’t do it again!

This system has its pros and cons but it would make the parties work together and plan for things outside of the usual four or five year timescale, something which is necessary for the NHS and transport infrastructure planning. It would pretty much see the end of by-elections and eliminate some of the odd results that we get now which are usually sorted at the following general election.

The time for change is now. It’s just a question of ‘how radical are we prepared to be’ and ‘how do we do it’?