The word of the moment is clear and unambiguous… yet no-one can agree on what it means. What’s the word? Reform, of course.

Mention any issue that is in the news to a politician and very shortly you will get the word “reform” bandied around. Let’s reform this, let’s reform that, everything needs reform! But what reform? Reform of what? And why?

Reform of the MPs expenses system is needed for obvious reasons – one of them being to rescue public opinion of politicians from the sewers that it has resided in since the stories first started coming out in the Telegraph some last century 24 days ago. But even this clearly required reform does not have consensus, with some wanting to go so far as to house MPs in a block of flats, Brown wanting to replace expenses with a daily allowance, Cameron wanting to restrict expenses to only certain items, and Clegg floundering around saying something new about “reforming the expenses system” in some way or another every day – and then you have the great number of people who have just turned to the “screw them all” approach.

From the MPs expenses scandal and the (even further) collapse of public confidence in politicians has re-emerged another place to use the word – just after “parliamentary”. Parliamentary reform, however, is even more impossible to reach any form of consensus on than MP expenses – primarily because everyone’s view of what parliament is and/or should be does not agree. And so there are four main issues:

• Proportional representation
• Fixed term parliaments
• Elected House of Lords
• Referendums
• MP recalls

There is a poll that says that people are generally in favour in all of these things, but this is not based on real knowledge of the political system, but a perception of “fairness” with little thought for the consequences.

Proportional Representation

Whenever we talk about political reform, there are always a significant number of people who jump up and down shouting about changing the electoral system to proportional representation is “the only way” to make the political system better represent the people – but, of course, they’re wrong.

Proportional representation is not the correct electoral system for the House of Commons because it

a) removes the constituency link between MPs and the people
b) removes the much of the ability for the people to vote for individuals rather than parties – how many independent or single issue MPs can be elected under PR?
c) takes control away from the people and puts it into the hands of the political elites
d) makes effective government impossible

What PR in the Commons would do is remove control of the government from the people and places it squarely in the hands of the political class. No longer would any party have a hope in hell of achieving a majority in the Commons and as such of forming an effective government. What would happen is that instead they would have to form coalitions – and coalitions are decided in the backrooms by horse-trading politicians.

What is inevitable is that minor and fringe parties would get a far bigger voice than their vote would – or could – ever justify. The will of the people would be put second to politicking and achieving a majority in the Commons, not in actually putting into action the measures included in the manifestos or providing efficient and effective government to the country.

However, proportional representation certainly does have a place in British politics – and that is in the House of Lords. The Upper House should be directly reflective of the votes of the people at the last election because the government is not formed directly from it, and that no party has a majority there would be absolutely no change from the current situation except to actually make it reflect the public’s vote.

Fixed term parliaments

What is the idea behind fixed term parliaments? The only good one I can see is that elections are no longer held at the behest of the Prime Minister, but are set at fixed dates every four years. This would mean that no longer would a PM be able to call an election when he thinks that it best suits them and their party. The problem with this is that political campaigns, like in the US, will start much earlier and cost much more to run.

Under a fixed parliament, politics as usual will cease a year before the polling date and every politician will be focused on campaigning rather than doing their job and representing the people. What will happen is each parliament will actually be only three years long, as the last year will be consumed by election fever. What it would also do is remove the ability for a general election to be held if a government loses the mandate of the people – like Brown’s government has at the moment – or if the leader of the party in government is replaced and the new PM feels that a new mandate is necessary.

Rather than a fixed term, I think it would be better to extend the gap between an election being announced and it taking place to 2-3 months, as that would minimise the benefit any PM could get from election timing.

Elected House of Lords

This is something that I feel is essential – and a perfect use of PR. We need an elected House of Lords to complement and set off the House of Commons, and to ensure that any legislation passed has been properly scrutinised – and if it is elected by PR and based on the percentages received in the MP elections, no vote is a wasted vote any more.

Referendums

Direct democracy is always popular, and our current political system hardly gives itself to referendums – and even if there is an issue that needs one, the government does not give us one. We should have more provision for referendums in our political system – as a rule of thumb, we should have a referendum on anything that significantly changes our political relationships. Such as the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty.

MP recalls

Many people would like the ability to recall their MPs, especially after the recent expenses revelations. But I am in two minds on whether it is a good idea or not. Unless the conditions for a recall or so high as to be nigh-on impossible to gain, it will be possible for political opponents to orchestrate a recall, especially in marginal seats – but if the conditions are set that that high, it’s going to be hard for a legitimate recall to take place.

There are no philosophical objections to recall that I can see, just practical ones.

Conclusion

Parliamentary reform is not something that is easy or will ever be subject to a complete consensus. The Lib Dems will always want PR because it would give them more MPs, but it will always be a bad idea because it would remove any chance for effective government – but PR should be used in the Lords to properly reflect public opinion.

Democracy is as democracy does – it can never be totally defined. Which is why there will never be total agreement over what reforms there should be.