A CALL by British Conservative leader David Cameron for a “massive redistribution” of power in Britain was given a guarded welcome at Westminster yesterday, but reformers dismissed his blueprint as too modest.
Jack Straw, the justice secretary, depicted Mr Cameron as a latecomer to the cause of reform but said he was convening all-party talks to discuss how the main parties could draw up proposals before the summer recess.
It was left to Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, to dismiss Mr Cameron’s intervention as a “nip-and-tuck” approach that would not lead to the sacking of errant MPs or reform the House of Lords (the UK parliament’s second chamber).
As the row over expenses prompts a debate about wider reforms to parliament, Mr Cameron attempted to seize the initiative by floating a series of proposals to reduce the power of the prime minister and to boost the role of backbench MPs.
In a speech at the Open University the Conservative leader said: “We need a massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power.” Cameron opened his speech yesterday by admitting that MPs had made indefensible expenses claims. These have been dramatic and turbulent weeks for our whole political process. A torrent of revelation and accusation. Apologies have been made. Money paid back. Careers ended.” He then outlined a series of proposals which included:
Curbing the power of the prime minister by considering the introduction of fixed-term parliaments. This would deny the prime minister the right to decide when a general election is held; and
Boosting the role of MPs by allowing them to select the chairs and members of Commons select committees.
Mr Straw welcomed Mr Cameron’s contribution, although he said many of his ideas were not original. “There should be no copyright in good ideas,” the justice secretary said.
“Many of those mentioned by David Cameron today have been around for some time.”
Mr Clegg was more critical. “They [the Tories] are saying nothing about sacking individual MPs; they are saying nothing about the scandal of having an unelected House of Lords who can make the laws of the land for us and they are not accountable to us.
“It says nothing about the fact that under our electoral system we give huge amounts of power . . . to the government of the day even though they only get a tiny minority of the eligible votes.”
Ken Ritchie, chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society, said introducing fixed-term parliaments would have little impact unless Britain's first-past-the-post electoral system were abolished. – ( Guardianservice)