This is a bit insulting to political parties!

While there are lots of evil things about them, they do act as a vehicle for cohesing and coordinating a set of policies into a bundle.

We need something to replace that function, if we were to get rid of parties.

I’m thinking quite a lot at the moment about what positive things to do to move this debate along. It seems very divided – parties are good vs. parties are evil. What changes can be made that would improve parties?

To improve parties, I think, is a difficult one to answer. The main complaints (as I, rather cynically interpret them) are those of:

- patronage (raising as a Minister/Select Committee[1] posts) for those who do as they’re told (hardly a new claim, though);

- slightly related, the idea of “elected on the Party wagon, so sod constituents’ views: I’ll do what the Whips say/intimidate”

- party-funding is an issue, but not one that can be taken in isolation (particularly if one looks at the idea of allowing, at election time, voters to indicate to whom they’d like ‘their’ allocation [3quid, or whatever it is] to go to)

[1] although I’m rather keen on the Conservative Democracy Taskforce’s idea of striping this power from the PM, and making it voted on, by MPs.

People will team up with others of the same interest, sure, I think it would be exceptionally naïf to believe otherwise

The standard argument for political parties is that they are the only way to develop a coherent political programme, rather than have 645 MPs competing to pass pork-related bills and veto their colleagues’ actions on NIMBY grounds. How would you deal with this issue?

Throughout Britain’s history, our system of government has evolved to suit changing circumstances: A strong argument against fossilising everything into a written constitution.

Perhaps, the advent of the Internet and web 2 techniques make it time to consider further changes: Could a clever web 2 service replace some of the functions of traditional political parties?

However, many of the worst political mistakes were the result of *logical* decisions which ignored *pragmatic* politics. eg:

- The “Poll Tax” *appeared* very sensible & fair, but actually led to civil unrest & an even worst tax.
- Abolition of the House of Lords *appeared* like “modernisation” but has proved disastrous (including the whole “cash for honours” saga).
- Until seriously abused, the government’s and parties’ powers of patronage actually make our public systems work.

As I learnt years ago while studying politics, our system is imperfect and is sometimes corrupted but it usually works better than alternatives.

At present, the UK restricts the foreign ownership of UK newspapers and broadcast channels: These restrictions do not (cannot?) apply to the Internet.

But, the Internet is already changing USA politics (not always for the better); the UK should start carefully embracing the Internet now, or it will distort our next General Election in ways which we wouldn’t want.

eg. Google (with its mapping of political polls), Yahoo, “Youtube” type video sites, and most of the “Social Networking” web-sites are based outside the UK, so are beyond any UK media laws: How would we feel about powerful foreign companies significantly affecting the results of a UK General Election?

@Ian’s comment: Quite simply, let them compete The good ideas will get support, the less popular (amidst their fellow Members) won’t get the support they need: but I come from the viewpoint that there are too many Bills enacted (often without sufficient scrutiny) each year, and anything that thwarts unnecessary (and un-scrutinized) legislation is a Good Thing.

I agree that far too much legislation has been enacted by Blair, especially since his government decided “sending a message” about the importance of an issue was the best reason for passing several Acts of Parliaments, regardless of whether they had any effect. How would abolishing political parties change this? How could legislation protecting minority groups against populist majoritarian Sun-led campaigns pass in a non-party system?

@Richard S’s comments: If, from my post, readers got the impression that I’m advocating a written constitution, I’m not; I’m far too much of a pragmatist to moot that point — at the moment: there could well be a point in the next few years or so where it would be useful, but I’d imagine it would take a decade or so to investigate, draft, and then ‘agree’ (consensually, natch) such a document, as well as opening about six cans of worms.

I’m not entirely convinced Web 2.0 could handle these approaches; that’s probably worthy of it’s own debate — anyone want to kick that off?

On ‘pragmatic’ politics: I can’t think of the ‘Poll Tax’ without reference to the PM’s ardent belief that it would work, and was a wonderful idea; but some of us will remember how it Just Wouldn’t Work everywhere…

Lords Reform: hum — it’s been on the cards since the late 1880s; more so since the 1911 Act, which, by its own admission was “intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation”: still not achieved almost a century on…; ‘Abolition’ is a bit strong, too, “reform” would be the word I’d choose (and, indeed, in quotes)

Others would, of course, take issue over patronage actually working; it works fine for those in the Club — admittedly, in recent years (94, or there abouts), the Club has been expanded slightly.

The Political UK’s use of the internet is an interesting one; although I certainly think that until the Commons sorts itself out, we’ll not actually get all that far; particularly with reference to the Members’ communications allowances.

Re: “powerful foreign companies”, I’d question whether so-called ‘British’ companies, are all that British these days — I’m neither saying it’s a good thing, nor a bad thing — something that global macroeconomic polity (or is it practice?) has facilitated; at the debate Polly Toynbee lamented on the changing face of the press since the Murdochization; it’s an interesting debate to have; the issue of companies touches on funding of parties too; it’s another potentially open-ended debate that could take place.

I agree that far too much legislation has been enacted by Blair, especially since his government decided “sending a message” about the importance of an issue was the best reason for passing several Acts of Parliaments, regardless of whether they had any effect. How would abolishing political parties change this?

Well, I don’t think it’s necessary a Blairism, although it would be incorrect to say “not much legislation’s been passed” since 97 (1998->2006 = 360 Public Enactments [69 in 1997 -- but some were those of Major's tenure]).

Abolishing parties (well, even the Whip) would make it far more difficult for things to get through; Members wouldn’t have to worry that, to gain promotion, their obedience to the Party-whip would be a deciding factor, and to some extent when questioned by constituents, there would be no excuse “you elected a party MP, I do as the Party, not what my constituents tell me”. So we could see a return to principled, vertebrate-equipped politicians…

How could legislation protecting minority groups against populist majoritarian Sun-led campaigns pass in a non-party system?

If they gain the support they need, they’ll pass through; I suppose it’s Legislative Darwinism… but the whole power of the press is another can of worms — an interesting one, mind.

Why would the fitness function for legislation be “better” than that of today’s? I cannot imagine a chamber of 645 independent MPs being a place filled with serene, high-minded reflection upon the issues of the day and rejecting narrow-minded populist measures.