The shocking lack of action by Parliament and the parties leaves everyone frustrated.  It's bad enough that this situation arose in the first place, but no-one seems to be taking charge and sorting it out. 

The proposals from Cameron and Brown are woefully inadequate.

The only person with the (theoretical) power to do anything is the Queen.  Perhaps she should dissolve parliament for 3 or 4 months and insist they come up with proposals to clean up their act before she calls a general election in the autumn.

How can Cameron's Oxfordshire pile (by way of example, and not wanting to single him out of course!) be considered "wholly and exclusively" for Commons business?

It is clear to most ordinary people that an MP's second home needs only 1 bedroom and the basics for subsistence while away from the "family home".  Allowing MPs to elect which is the 2nd home has resulted in many electing the "most expensive" to be claimed.  And not just the few.

It is the House of Commons as a whole who devised this rediculously generous system of expenses, it is the House that polices it, and it is individual MPs who benefit from it.

If Cameron had any real conviction he would stop scapegoating his colleagues, stop calling for a general election and force by-elections in each and every Conservative-held seat so that they could be re- elected with a renewed mandate.  But not before he takes a reality check on the meaning of "wholly and exclusively" for House of Commons business.

Less whipping?  There should be no whipping!  Parliament should be independent of the executive.  Why is the subject of a presidential system, or other separation of the institutions never on the agenda?

Limit the use of the Royal Prerogative?  There should be no such thing as the Royal Prerogative.  We need to establish once and for all the principle that power derives from the people and it is their consent that is needed to govern, and their consent can be withdrawn at any time.

Fixed-term Parliaments?  Leaving aside the hypocrisy of this given his calls for an immediate general election, this solution is as bad as the problem.  Better would be holding elections 2 or 3 times a year, putting up a proportion of seats at each, similar to council elections, but more frequent.  This would make governments continuously accountable, while allowing more focus on local issues and individual candidates.  It would also give MPs more independence from the parties.

Nick Clegg's ideas are no better.  Proportional representation is no answer in itself.  Experience elsewhere shows that P-R in a wholly parliamentary system is a recipe for weak, unaccountable government.  It has far more merit when there are separate elections for the executive, so that we have both strong, accountable government and a truly representative legislature.

Lords reform, again, poorly thought out.  There is no reason to think that just making the upper house elected will improve things.  We don't want more professional politicians and we don't want the same party influence.  The status quo won't do, but so far, there has been too little thought put into what is needed and what will deliver. Personally I think something akin to a party list system, but without parties would be best.  I.e. charities, pressure-groups, religious organisations would nominate members in the upper house for a fixed term, in proportion to preferences registered by the electorate.

And, as usual, we have to wait for Gordon Brown's proposals.  He's been talking about reform longer than anyone else, but still has no firm proposals.

It seems clear that there is chronic need for democratic reform, but it is equally as clear that we cannot leave it to politicians to deliver it.

Steve.Dillon@SackTheParties.org.uk

Postscipt (11/06/2009)

Again, Gordon Brown promises consultations and grand plans, but no substance, no likelihood of anything capable of delivery in what is left of his premiership.

And what is this flaw?  The fact that the executive is rooted in the legislature.

Parliament needs to be independent of the executive to have any relevance.  It is unacceptanble that the head of government is the leader of a political party, that members of the government sit in parliament, and that a political party can dictate the way an MP votes, yet none of these issues is addressed in any reform proposals put forward by the main parties.

There are many potential solutions to the problem, but until the agenda is rested from the parties, there is little chance that the real issues will be recognised, let alone addressed.

Ironically, to do this we need a party.  The whole system is geared towards parties, so we need to play the game.  But this would be a party with a difference.  The only policies would relate to the selection and conduct of its candidates.  Selection would be through open primary.  Anyone can stand, anyone can vote.  The selected candidate would then receive the full backing of the party machine. National publicity would be geared towards the principle of independence, not a legislative manifesto.  And if anyone actually defied all the odds and got elected, there would be no party whip, just clear guidelines about what is considered acceptable behaviour for a public representative.

Postscript (03/06/2009)

It turns out that there is such an umbrella organisation for independent candidates, the Jury Team (www.juryteam.org).

Professional politicians cannot be trusted to do any more than it takes to make them electable. Not only must the second home allowance go, but other allowances (staffing, office, travel etc) need to be opened up to full scrutiny.  Other practices, such as the whip system and executive influence need urgent attention.

The best hope now is for a general election and a new parliament where independants hold sway.  Don't hold your breath.

Ridiculous claims for Kit-Kat and horse manure grab the headlines, but the real cause for disgust for most ordinary people is the whole concept of the second homes allowance.  Many of us are all too familiar with the Inland Revenue test of wholly and exclusively for the purpose of work.  The second homes allowance fails this test.  A second home is there for use when you don't need it for work, not to mention the fact that it remains as a personal asset.  MP's should be subject to the same rules as the rest of us.  If they need accommodation and subsistence for the days they work, they should have this paid for them.  But no more than that.

Of course the real answer to the problem would be to have a proper look at what institutions are needed in the modern world from the local neighbourhood to the EU.  We may discover that Westminster is surplus to requirements altogether.

Our leaders seem particularly challenged by the questions of how to make the Lords "distinct" from the Commons, and what proportion of their number should be elected.

On the first point, I would suggest that the obvious way to make it distinct (and independent) would be to disallow parties involved in Commons elections from taking part.  Why not have charities, pressure groups, think-tanks, and religious and community leaders instead?

Another would be to scrap the idea of Lords constituencies.  This brings them into direct conflict with geographical representatives in the Commons.

On the subject of the proportion elected, it seems obvious to me that the proportion of Lords elected should be equal to the turnout. Therefore, if only 40% of the electorate choose to vote, then 60% of the seats would be appointed for that term.  This would also mitigate the unpredictable nature of results from a (highly probable) small turnout.

Personally, I would go further and not have elections as such.  Rather, people would register a preference for the group they choose to represent their views in the Lords. They would be free to change this preference at any time and the composition of the House changed periodically in accordance with the register.  Again, the proportion of appointed Lords would equate to that proportion of the electorate not registering a preference.

For years, the main parties have relied on the tribal nature of their support.  They believe there will always be people who will vote for the Party, no matter what the current direction is.  In two votes last Thursday the two main parties were told to think again.

The parties are obsessed with what they can do to sway voters in the 120-or-so so-called marginal constituencies that have decided recent elections.  Though the shift away from traditional party values has inevitably led to lower turnouts, sufficient numbers of voters in the remaining majority of constituencies have continued to vote through force of habit or a sense of tribal loyalty to keep the usual supects in power.

Many people in Bromley and Chislehurst took the familiar option of the the Lib-Dem protest vote.  This is highly unlikely to be repeated at a general election, as the Lib- Dems are no closer to their core values than the current Conservative leadership.

More promising was the answer of the people of Blaenau Gwent.  A party MP's first loyalty is to the party.  If you agree with the party line, then this isn't a problem.  An independent MP only represents the constituency, so if no party represents your views, then an independent MP who has to listen to his constituents is the preferable option.

The message?  Vote independent and reclaim Parliament for the people.

The idea that "bigger is better" may have some appeal in terms of economy-of-scale savings, or ease of control for politicians, but it is a step in the wrong direction for accountability.  Certainly, there should be more sharing of information and cooperation between forces, and there may be opportunities for efficiency improvements by sharing common services, but there is no excuse for taking control and accountability away from the communities they serve.

The only reason the Government is so keen on merging forces is that with fewer forces, more remote from the communities, they will be more susceptible to control.

Whenever anyone criticises the invasion of Iraq, Government spokesmen invariably respond by saying "we're delivering democracy to the Iraqi people...".  Not only is that an argument for the "ends justifies the means", it is also a lie.  Iraq is as far from democracy today as it has ever been.  Furthermore, the system foisted onto the people of Iraq will never deliver true democracy.  It is a copy of the system that is failing to deliver democracy here in the UK.

Democracy can only be built from the bottom up.  Imposing a top-down system can only lead to anarchy or despotism.

While the media are all too happy to get involved without criticising the system that hosts this farce, most people are just wondering how on earth we arrived at a position where a political party claims a mandate for the whole of its manifesto based on the support of just 22% of the electorate, then decides it is time to impose a new Prime Minister on the country without recourse to that electorate.

Yes it is time for a change, but it should be a change of system rather than of party-appointed Prime Minister.

Still talked at by politicians and so-called experts, now with the addition of TV and radio celebrities.  Are these to be our new representatives?

Breakout sessions were lectures rather than workshops.  A few interesting ideas but no real debate.  Just comments from the floor that people had been waiting a lifetime to put but with no one else really interested.

David Cameron's idea of open primaries for parliamentary candidates is an interesting idea, though I wonder how open nominations would be.  And what's the point of having primaries when, once elected, the candidate becomes just another piece of lobby-fodder for the whips?

Nick Boles' suggestion that the same powers devolved to Scotland should be devolved to the English counties and metropolitan areas was also an interesting idea, especially when enhanced by Peter Tatchell's suggestion that there may be no need for the Westminster Parliament at all, pointing to Malta as an independent member of the EU with a population less than most English counties.

Consistently providing a platform for career politicians, such as Ed Milliband MP, who exemplifies the sort of politician detested by the public (a party appointee to a safe seat, not at all representative of his constituents), shows that the Commission has missed the point.

This has been a chance in a lifetime to get to the root of a very serious problem.  Sadly it looks like it will fail.  Politicians are already cherry-picking from what is a very mediocre set of recommendations, and the chance of getting any serious reform onto the agenda looks slim.

Peter Tatchell summed up the question time slot by saying that we can't wait for politicians to change the system.  What we need is a new Chartist movement, and our own velvet revolution.

What we lack is a charter for this movement.  The POWER recommendations do not provide one.