Give people power to sack corrupt politicians, urges PM
Party leaders spell out their rival plans to revive Parliament and politics in wake of expenses scandal
Gordon Brown today supports the public being given the power to remove corrupt and incompetent MPs, councillors and public servants from office.
Writing in The Independent, the leaders of the three major political parties set out their blueprints for rejuvenating Britain's political system following the MPs' expenses scandal.
The Prime Minister vows to "put more power where it belongs – in the people's hands", and gives his backing to granting dissatisfied voters the power of "recall" over their political representatives – when elections can be re-run if enough local people demand so.
He discloses that he will shortly be talking about "how by recall, redress and better representations all local people can have far more influence on local budgets and local decisions, from policing to schooling".
The power was most famously used when a ballot of Californians forced the removal of Gray Davis as state governor. Supporters concede that its use would have to be strictly limited to prevent MPs or councillors falling victim simply to well-run campaigns, but the controversial idea is being seriously examined by the Government. Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, yesterday agreed that the principle of recall "should be looked at".
Also writing in The Independent, David Cameron, the Conservative leader, says that politicians have a "once in a generation" opportunity to rebuild trust with the voters, while Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, demands a "revolution" in public life.
In his article, Mr Brown insists: "There is no option I will not consider if it redistributes power. What has always been clear to me is that we must look at new ways in which the political elites can be made accountable to serve more effectively the single most important person in our democracy – the citizen."
The Prime Minister says he has been "angered and appalled" by the disclosures and promises tough action against "wrong-doing".
He writes: "The recent controversies crystallise a long-gestating problem of disengagement between the British public and those who serve them as elected representatives."
Mr Cameron says his party's central objective would be the "most radical redistribution of power this country has ever seen". He sets out plans to reinvigorate Parliament, limit the power of the prime minister and end the "culture of sofa government". The Tory leader said he would also "look seriously" at ending the right of the prime minister to choose the timing of an election by introducing fixed-term parliaments.
Mr Clegg also calls for voters to get the power to sack MPs guilty of wrong-doing and for an end to the "anachronism" of the House of Lords. He protests that an electoral system that gave Labour a large majority in 2005 on a 22 per cent share of the vote effectively disenfranchises millions of people. "Such a system, where so much power depends on the support of so few people, will always breed secrecy and arrogance. It must be changed, and a voting system introduced that puts power into everyone's hands," he says.
With constitutional reform soaring up the political agenda, Mr Straw has called cross-party talks on rebuilding Parliament's credibility. They are due to begin within the next two months. The discussions will examine ways of giving greater power to MPs.
Ideas being discussed will be greater scrutiny of contentious legislation, more independence for select committees and examining ways in which the voters can trigger debates in the House of Commons.
Mr Straw also yesterday signalled his likely support for fixed-term parliaments. "Personally I think there are advantages in this... subject to circumstances in which the government lost its majority. It's certainly a consideration," he told the BBC. The shadow Business Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, who chaired Mr Cameron's democracy task force, said it was important that proposals for a fixed-term parliament included clauses to get rid of dysfunctional governments.
He told Channel 4 News: "It's a good case at the moment because this parliament's dead and ought to be brought to an end now." He added: "I would be in favour of fixed terms, so long as you had some let-out that enables you to get rid of a parliament which is dead and can't form a government."
Two cabinet ministers – the Health Secretary Alan Johnson and the Universities Secretary John Denham – have called for a referendum on electoral reform at the next election. Ed Miliband, the Climate Change Secretary, has suggested that the Commons procedures should be modernised.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited


Comments
He has never shown the slightest interest in reforming the political landscape and once again is reacting to events in a tactical fashion in an attempt to prevent a loss of control.
As power slips through his fingers and his authority is diminishing on an almost daily basis, he grows ever more desperate. His powers of patronage are declining, the MacBride affair showed the hypocrisy of the 'values' that he referred to when he replaced Tony Blair, the situation is terminal. His political career will end with a bang as a corrupt, morally and financially bankrupt Labour Party are boycotted by their own activists disgusted what the party has become under his leadership.
The man who obtained his Ph.D on the history of the Labour Party will be remembered as the man who contributed most, both as Chancellor and Prime Minister, to ensure its destruction.
All politicians (& persons-who-belong-to-political-parties)
Individual political parties and their members should be barred from control of processes leading to potential political structures' reform in the UK...
Solution: the Queen ought to dissolve Parliament- mandating a general election within 90 days- while simultaneously setting a 1-year (or there abouts) schedule for a UK-wide public consultation process regarding possible changes to the UK's political structures...
This UK-wide public consultation process should be set to begin no later than 2 months after the completion of the general election, and should have to be facilitated by a non-partisan body, or at least overseen by a multi-party oversight group....
After the UK political structures reform public consultation process was completed, and its data compiled and summarized, the UK's (adult) public should be enabled to vote for their preferred UK political structures model via a referendum with 3 different options for voters to choose between....
2 of the referendum's 3 options should outline succinctly 2 different new political structure models for the UK, with the 3rd option leaving things as they are...
The present UK Parliament- & its MP's- is far too tainted by the corruption & culture of self-interest that has been shown to permeate it so deeply for the present Parliament- & present MP's- to be charged with anything to do with leading the revamping or restructuring of the UK's political structures...
The legitimacy and 'clean hands' that would be automatically be provided (at least in public perceptions) to MP's that have been freshly- or newly- elected would make their (limited) participation in any processes regarding a revamping of the UK's political structures a good deal more appropriate than members of the present Parliament/Commons/Lords/govt....
The extraordinary urgency of:
- the MP's expenses scandal;
- civil service corruption;
- Lords accepting bribes for their votes; and
the glaringly obvious need for an objective- not politicized body- to be charged with delineating potential new/reformed UK political structures- to eventually be put to voters in a referendum- calls for extraordinary & impartial actions...
Such impartial actions could be delivered constructively by the Queen....
If not by Her Majesty, then who????
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
Wow is this man thick?
How long have we all been begging him to resign?
Right how do we go about sacking him? obviously a petition doesnt work so what do we do?
Brown's latest quick fix, is a licence for the dormant schemer-activists in the Labour party to again bully the party into more Wedgy-Bennery. In the wake of a bad electoral defeat, this could easily go out of control - again.
Oh well, Brown will be gone by then, and the yes-men and sycophants who surround him will take the hit, it's their funeral.
If the Telegraph was really concerned with justice and not just upping its circulation it would have put the information it is using, all of it, on a web site for all to see. The MPS who have not been misusing the expenses rules would then be evident for all to see.
I'd just like the opportunity to vote on Gordons right to lead the country as I find his current occupation of Downing st shall we say, at best, undemocratic.
You don't live in a Republic with a President. Giving the voters the right to vote for the PM would only create all the problems there are in the US and France where a leader is elected independently of the members of the Parliament. There are continual arguments between the President and the parliament which in the case of the US means legislation simply doesn't get passed that is necessary, such as closing Guantanomo at present (this even applies to finance bills so that the goverment has to run on tick for months on end - not good for businesses supplying the government or civil servants who have to borrow their salaries from the banks) or France where the president then ignores parliament (cohabitation - often ruling by decree). If you want that sort of system, rather than your representatives, that you have voted for, choosing their leader - and getting rid of him/her if they have had enough of the 'ineptness' - as with Thatcher or a leader dying in office, then you should find enough supporters of your idea, inside an existing party or set up a new one, to change the constitution. But only if a majority of the elctorate as a whole agrees with you, that is what is meant by democracy.
Do we need them? The really bad actors in Expensesgate are not going to be running in the next election. They already see the writing on the wall.
Stupid freedom of information act, now let's arrest those pesky Daily Telegraph journalists responsible for this wrong doing - the public deserve justice!