How to fix a broken parliamentary system

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/28/how-to-fix-a-broken-parliamentary-system

Version 0 of 1.

Rafael Behr argues compellingly that MPs must smash the party system (Journal, 27 March). The Brexit chaos has vividly displayed the multiple faults of our first-past-the-post system, unresolved by a referendum in which a 52:48 win is represented as “the will of the people”. Since the second world war under our system British governments have repeatedly achieved a parliamentary majority on the back of an electoral minority. This is the system that Theresa May claimed at the last election would give “strong and stable government”.

What we need now is radical reform of the whole system, starting with the abolition of single-member constituencies and first past the post. These ensure that election results are always distorted and deny real choice to electors. If you were a Brexiter Tory in Beaconsfield you had no choice at the last election but to vote for Dominic Grieve. In neighbouring High Wycombe, a Tory remainer had no choice but to vote for Steve Baker. What a ludicrous denial of true choice! Yet the same lack of choice is characteristic of seats right across parliament, whichever party has won a constituency.

The single transferable vote works. The Irish have proved that it is perfectly simple for voters to understand. It would not simply smash the present discredited system but replace it with one that gives proportional representation among parties, and power back where it belongs – to the electors. It would make individual MPs answerable not just to their party members but to all their electors. Its introduction would begin the process of fundamental reform vital to long-term political recovery. Robert W BradnockGlasgow

• Rafael Behr is right that it will be difficult for many MPs to take the kind of steps necessary for dismantling archaic practices – becoming independents, disobeying the whips, or even leaving their party for good. That is why Compassion in Politics believes it is so important for us to get back to basics and to establish clear common values across parliament that most politicians can work towards. And while we’re honoured that many politicians have already joined our cause, the work begins when we put our plans to the test in parliament. That will see us propose a new bill to ensure all future legislation improves the wellbeing of the most vulnerable and protects future generations – a simple, but we hope effective, way of re-establishing the social concrete and giving MPs who are currently living life in a tailspin a new sense of direction.Matt HawkinsCo-founder, Compassion in Politics

• So Jacob Rees-Mogg dismissed an observation from a fellow Tory as “characteristically Wykehamist” (Old school ties: Rees-Mogg’s intervention, 28 March). The Wykehamist fallacy is a trap to which British diplomats were said to be prone, namely the mistaken belief that the intentions of others could be always trusted as if they shared the values of someone who might have been educated at Winchester (ie a Wykehamist). Based on Rees-Mogg’s observation, it might be time to recognise the Etonian fallacy, namely the mistaken belief that the British public are interested in old school rivalries or consider them of relevance to political life.Prof David HumphreysThe Open University

• Aditya Chakrabortty is right to call into question the attitudes and behaviour of some of our ministers (Amoral and venal: Britain’s governing class has lost all sense of duty, 27 March). High standards of professional behaviour are maintained in the medical profession by the General Medical Council. Perhaps the MPs’ code of conduct should be strengthened and become active in enforcing its principles of a high standard of conduct in public life. It would need to remove from public office ministers who waste public money while damaging our prison, probation and transport services or who have squandered millions on a vanity bridge project, make racist comments about Muslim women or use false information in a referendum campaign. Doing this might help restore confidence in the majority of MPs who do maintain high standards of behaviour in public life. It could even be a positive outcome of the Brexit fiasco. Francis CreedEmeritus professor of psychological medicine, University of Manchester

• Michael Knowles (Letters, 27 March) writes: “But 23 June 2016 was the people’s D-day; it was the day when the people of the UK took an almighty historic decision, but one the majority of MPs did not want.” We hear this argument again and again, but let’s remember that the narrow majority (only 52:48) who voted to leave the EU was not uniformly spread throughout the UK. Scotland showed a resounding majority to remain, followed by clear margins for the major cities of Cardiff, Manchester, London and Liverpool: with only Newcastle, Leeds, Birmingham and Sheffield hovering at around 50:50. Given that these cities include many of our large universities, it is hardly surprising that the majority of MPs might reflect a similar preference, even when they represent impoverished former industrial towns whose voters were misinformed by Brexit promises.

What has been happening in parliament over the last two weeks is what is supposed to happen: to make decisions and rulings in the interests of all constituents, and by summation, the whole of the UK: based on the evidence available right now, not on the myths and slogans of 2016.Susan TreagusManchester

• Martin Kettle (May’s departure won’t halt this slow drift into a kind of civil war, 27 March) says: “This crisis in fact remains what it has been since June 2017 – the product of a lethally destabilising convergence of three things: the challenge to parliamentary government caused by the 2016 referendum result, the difficulty of dealing with major issues in a hung parliament, and above all the immensity of the Brexit issue itself in resetting Britain’s national order and its place in the world. None of that is going to change under a new leader.”

He omits a primordial fourth. If a few “well-meaning” Labour MPs had not nominated Jeremy Corbyn for leadership, Labour would have campaigned vigorously to remain in the EU, and the outcome of the referendum would have been different.Venetia CaineGlastonbury, Somerset

• Here is a truly fair and workable Brexit solution. Hold the European elections on 29 May. Parties and candidates would present their viewpoint on our future relationship with Europe. The voting is by proportional representation, so we will have a truly representative UK assembly of MEPs. They would be better versed than MPs in how Europe works and would understand what might be acceptable to their European colleagues. UK MEPs would then be required to work in citizens’ assembly style: listening to evidence and having moderated discussions. This should produce firm and workable proposals to take to the EU.Prof Richard Harding and Dr Sue RobertsWallingford, Oxfordshire

• I suggest parliament uses the same voting system as for the forthcoming Conservative party leadership election and drop the option with the lowest number of “ayes”, until only two are left. Then decide which of these will be chosen.Nicholas EvansLondon

• As you reported (UK secures post-Brexit trade deal with group of Caribbean countries, 22 March), the UK is starting to secure trade agreements with a number of countries, to “roll over” deals they currently have with the UK through the EU. What neither you nor the Department for International Trade are clarifying is that these deals only partly replicate the UK’s present deals with those countries via the EU. The agreement with Switzerland is only fully rolled over during the transition of the withdrawal agreement, when the EU will ask those other countries to treat the UK as if it were still an EU member. Whether the other countries accept that is up to them. Switzerland has.

But beyond the transition or if there is no UK-EU deal, key areas such as services, customs cooperation, and much of agriculture won’t be rolled over with Switzerland unless there are further negotiations. The deal with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein only covers tariffs, not non-tariff barriers and services, according to Norwegian media reports. I think it’s important to keep these developments in perspective.Peter UngphakornCoppet, Switzerland

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters

• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition