“Serving Scotland Better: Scotland & the UK in the 21st Century”: Briefing Note

Introduction

It has been some time since the publication of the Calman Commission’s final report. 269 pages long and costing the tax payer somewhere in the region of £500,000 (as has the National Conversation) it has produced fierce debate across the political spectrum. Much of the contention surrounds its main proposal to devolve further fiscal powers to the Scottish Parliament (from here on in the “Parliament”): that is, increasing the Parliaments’ tax varying powers.

Commentators, politician and journalists alike flocked to comment. The words ‘authoritative’ and ‘intelligent’ were never far away, notwithstanding the barrage of criticism too. The Centre deliberately held back from rushing an analysis of this important work, believing that it’s always best to let emotions settle before attempting to objectively assess a piece of work that seeks to alter how our country is run.

Let us offer a few important words of caution prior to the analysis. The Commission’s report is not an objective assessment of the devolution settlement in Scotland. The aim of this report, as Sir Kenneth Calman stated on Newsnight Scotland, is to “strengthen the parliament, help it serve Scotland better and maintain and develop the union.”

The important term here is “develop the union” which naturally necessitates the exclusion of the independence option. Remember this commission was created by a Scottish Labour leader, Wendy Alexander MSP, as a response to the SNP’s National Conversation.

Now this is not a political point; far from it in fact. We only suggest that if it was truly objective it would have reviewed all options. The participants in this analysis are influenced by their beliefs, values and unionist prejudices. Hence, this document is as much a declaration of values and principles as it is an objective assessment of devolution. See this is an intellectual warning of sorts.

What follows is not an exhaustive analysis of the report but an overview, one that merely scratches the surface.

Analysis

The Commission has three key aims which would create a Parliament to:

1. “serve the people of Scotland better”.
2. “improve [its] financial accountability”.
3. “secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom”.

These aims are looked at via several chapters. We will focus on the social union; the economic union; and other recommendations for strengthening devolution.

Social Union

Considerable attention is placed on outlining “Scotland’s place in the UK” where they seek to validate the positive and popularly backed relationship Scotland has had with the rest of the UK throughout its history; notwithstanding the occasions where conflict and tension has been the norm. Put simply, they seek to promulgate a 21st century version of unionism. Correctly they argue that issues, interests and values are shared throughout the UK. Importantly they state that:

“The evidence confirms that it is possible to have a distinct Scottish political identity, and differing Scottish policy choices, without undermining the essential unity of the United Kingdom in relation to matters that are critical to all its people.”

Undeniably, the “Scottish Parliament is here to stay” but whether or not it has “embedded itself in… the consciousness of the people of Scotland is debatable, particularly when seen in the context of a recent BBC Scotland poll which found that 46% of Scots think devolution has made “no difference” to their lives.

In reality the Parliament has been more readily accepted by the political elites/”usual suspects”, a view validated by looking more closely at the poll. The responses to the question: “Scotland's devolved parliament has been in existence since 1999. Do you think devolution has been a good thing for Scotland, a bad thing, or has it made no difference one way or the other” have a clear and identifiable trend. Those who think it has been a “good thing” are located in the higher social classes (AB and C1, 51%), whilst those who think it has made “no difference” can be found in the lower social class (C2 and DE, 53% and 56% respectively).

Lindsay Paterson provides further proof of this claim. Citing statistics from the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey 2007, Paterson affirms that “professionals are much more impressed by the Parliaments’ record… [they have] become its public bulwark”. Indeed, 67% of those working in high professional/managerial occupations thought the Parliament was giving people a greater say in Government in contrast to 34% of those in semi-routine/routine occupations.

There is no doubt that they are serious question marks over the report’s claim that the “verdict of the people of Scotland is that… devolution… has been a remarkable and substantial success”. The evidence with which they base these claims on is thin because the data is not representative of the population.

Hidden away in footnote 2.4 (p58) the authors reveal that: (1) respondents were “self-selecting”; and (2) the group “constitute a non-random sample [that] is not… representative of public opinion”. Point one is particularly important if we bear in mind that predominantly it is the usual suspects who respond to open consultations; not your average citizen (see Paterson 2009).

Hence, the Commission can not legitimately extrapolate generalizations from the sample to the population. It may appear that we are being pedantic but this entire report is largely based upon the belief that devolution is perceived to be a success by the Scottish population. This belief, then, may well be a skewed interpretation of a (self) selected few.

Foreign Policy

The case, it seems, is closed here. The Commission’s argument that “all parts of the UK must be joined together for defence and national security” appears to be the orthodox view. Certainly, the BBC Scotland poll reaffirms this view with 63% responding that the UK Government “should make most of the important decisions for Scotland about defence and foreign affairs”. But is it? Clearly the foreign policy functions of the state are “integral to the effective functioning of the United Kingdom as a sovereign nation-state with international responsibilities”. This is beyond doubt.

What remains less clear is if this architecture is in the “best interests of all its [UK’s] citizens”. Two high profile examples illustrate that there is a philosophy developing in Scotland that markedly contrasts with the view south of the border. The first of which is the Iraq War in 2003. The Scottish Parliament witnessed some of its most relevant and emotional debates on this issue, while Scottish civil society demonstrated in its thousands against the military operation. Of course the anti-war marches were replicated and surpassed throughout the UK but no other devolved parliament witnessed such antipathy to the invasion.

Secondly, the nuclear arsenal at the heart of UK foreign policy during the Cold War and maintained today is flatly rejected by a growing number of Scots’, including the current Scottish Government. They reject the arsenal in principle, refuse to accept that the UK needs a nuclear deterrent in the post Cold War international system and believe that Trident should not be renewed nor placed at Faslane Naval Base.

Is the Commission correct to argue, then, that the UK should exercise defence and national security powers indefinitely? That devolution of this power “is undesirable in principle”? “That it is in the best interests of all its citizens?” It seems that the case is far from closed and that the debate over nuclear power (both military and civilian) will continue to escalate, particularly if the next UK Government is Conservative and the SNP win a second term in the Parliament. Indeed, it could be postulated that by advocating the security status quo this report would create a Parliament that did not “serve the people of Scotland better”.

Economic Union

Without doubt the key objective for the Commission was to create “better linkage between taxation decisions and spending decisions it makes”. It was this issue, this recommendation, which the report would be solely judged against. This proved to be the case. Amid the flurry of commentary it was as if the Commission’s report only contained one section on finance. Its recommendations were:

1. That the Parliament “should be able to determine a ‘Scottish rate’ of income tax applying to all rates, but should not be able to change the difference between the rates”. Thus giving the Parliament “some control over its total spending”.
2. That “Stamp Duty Land Tax, Aggregates Levy, Landfill Tax and Air Passenger Duty should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, again with a corresponding reduction in the block grant.”
3. That the Scottish Government be given the “capacity to borrow for capital investment on a prudential basis”.
4. That the Parliament strengthen the” intergovernmental arrangements to deal with finance”.

These recommendations were, not surprisingly, both applauded and attacked. For some it didn’t go far enough (for e.g. the Scottish Government) while for others it was a “road map for devolution mark two” (Annabel Goldie, Scottish Conservative leader). For us the recommendations represent something of a “half-way house”. We commend the report’s attempts to address the linkage between tax and spend and its attempts to create more financial accountability in the Parliament (not to mention the other suggestions – see below)

Yet, it doesn’t go far enough. Weighed under by the numerous party political concerns and the culminating need to compromise it retains the anachronistic Barnett Formula; a “block and formula arrangement… that is unique internationally” (p73). Its uniqueness is not a source of pride, however, and ranks alongside the UK’s unelected House of Lords and its relic of an electoral system, FPTP, as a regressive feature of British politics.

The Commission hedges its bets on modifying the much maligned Barnett Formula - which will “still provide a significant share of the funding’ for the Parliament” - by “introducing a new Scottish Variable Rate (SVR) of income tax… which should apply to the basic and higher rates of income tax, building on the statutory framework that already exists for collecting a different rate in Scotland from the rest of the UK (p7, 10). Of course this power, as set out in Part IV of the Scotland Act 1998, has never been used. The authors admit that: “the SVR has not been successful in creating financial accountability”. Not surprisingly, the MSPs have shied away from utilising this power perceiving it as ‘electoral suicide’.

All of this begs the question why the Commission chose to retain the Barnett Formula? In the executive summary the authors’ state:

“Because it reflects the principle of the social Union, that taxes are pooled together and shared out in the form of a grant according to need” [and because it has] “no remit in relation to the rest of the UK”.

In considering why the SVR has not been used they also reach these conclusions (p79):

(1) There hasn’t been a “political consensus in the Parliament to exercise the power”.
(2) The last ten years witnessed “rapidly growing public spending” via strong economic growth. This may have suggested that “further growth from additional taxation was unnecessary”.
(3) Efficiency and simplicity of the grant-based system has “many practical advantages”.
(4) “The start up cost of the SVR for the first time” would have been “substantial” in comparison to the revenue which might be generated.
(5) A decision not to use the SVR “has no effect” on the Parliamentary budget.

Other implicit justifications can be found in the make up of the Commission itself. The Scottish Conservatives, Scottish Liberal Democrats and Scottish Labour may agree on rejecting independence but they disagree quite vociferously on the future of devolution in Scotland. It’s well known, for example, that the Lib Dems are proponents of federalism while it is far from certain that a new Conservative Government (if they are successful in the next General Election) would deliver on the report.

Our point is this: the entire report, particularly on financial matters, was arrived at through compromise. It is only by compromising that the Commission could speak with one voice. This need to compromise, it could be argued, had a detrimental effect on the financial recommendations of the report. But more than anything the single most important factor in only modifying Barnett is that:

“…the balance between these conflicting principles and the combination of funding mechanisms to be used should be determined not by the technical considerations of funding mechanisms, but by the constitutional objectives that the funding system
is designed to support.” (Underline added)

Here is conclusive proof that the report’s overriding aim is not to improve the Parliament’s financial accountability but to “secure the position of Scotland within the UK”. Of course this is no surprise to anyone - the report was a response to the rise in support for independence. Yet, one can still be surprised, perhaps even angered, that a document that was publically funded subjugates any factor that doesn’t serve their raison d’être: namely, maintaining the union.

A salient criticism of this report was published in an open letter to The Scotsman by a group of seven respected academics. They conclude that the “fiscal reforms proposed by the Calman Commission are at best an opportunity missed and at worst a recipe for economic instability in the future”. The authors’ continue:

“Only under fiscal autonomy can the accountability of the Scottish Parliament properly be entrenched… The proposals will do little to enhance the ability of a Scottish government to introduce measures necessary to improve Scotland's underlying economic growth rate, or to balance the Scottish economy through good times and bad.”

The last point is worth stressing. The recent Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland 2007-08 (GERS) report illustrated that “estimated current budget balance for the public sector in Scotland was a deficit of £7.1 billion (6.3 per cent of GDP) excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £6.4 billion (5.5 per cent of GDP)”. Clearly, tough decisions will have to be made if Scotland is going to recover from this recession, particularly when the deficit is likely to increase. The budgetary squeeze on the public sector will be severe.

Yet thus far the debate in the Scottish Parliament has centred on the £500m efficiency savings that the UK Government is imposing in Scotland. Largely they have swerved the important debate that has to be had on the state of our national economy and the cost of our public sector. And, who can blame them?

The Parliament is “not accountable for the total of their budget or how it is raised; it has no fiscal powers that can be used as policy instruments and it does not have a direct financial stake in the performance of the Scottish economy”. This leads the Commission to propose increased tax-varying powers to bring greater responsibility and accountability to the Parliament. But given the MSPs historical reluctance to use this power it can not be said with any certainty that they will find this greater ability to vary tax more appealing than before. Agreeing with the academics above, we maintain that the solution is full fiscal autonomy.

Strengthening Devolution

In addition to the above recommendations, the Commission also sought to devolve the following powers to the Scottish Parliament:

1. The administration of elections.
2. The regulation of airguns.
3. Regulation-making powers relating to drink-driving limits and national speed limits should be transferred to Scottish Ministers.

Naturally, these recommendations have been well received across the political spectrum. The first one in particular will be critical in atoning for the debacle that was the 2007 Scottish Parliamentary and Local Authority elections.

The Commission also proposed changes to the Parliament itself. One that stands out is the proposal to alter the bill process from three stages to four, allowing MSPs more time to reflect on newly made amendments made at stage three.

Nevertheless, the committee system remains largely unchanged albeit they were some recommendations (see 223). While the committee system is rightly acknowledged as being “generally effective”, it is highly questionable that it is still a “detailed scrutineer and an effective counterweight to the executive”. For a unicameral system like ours this is a serious concern. Indeed, any democratic system must have functioning checks and balances.

In the absence of a second chamber, the Consultative Steering Group (CSG) believed that “strong” committees would “rein in the government when necessary”. They anticipated that the committees would “initiate legislation, scrutinise and amend the Scottish executive’s proposals and have wide-ranging investigative functions”. Power-sharing too would be a central facet of the post-devolution parliamentary process.

Unfortunately there has been a notable schism between the ideals proposed by the architects and the practise of the committees themselves, as they always are. The scrutiny and legislative role of the committees have faced innumerable challenges throughout the last ten years. To name but a few, these are: (1) considerable time and resource pressures, particularly when compared to Westminster; (2) the lack of support from Government in drafting amendments and consequent executive dominance; (3) and innate partisanship.

Such challenges must be seen in context, however. The Scottish Parliament is not yet a teenager and its processes and deficiencies will most likely be refined through time. What Scotland has in place now is a vast improvement on what existed pre-devolution. And moreover, the inability of the Parliament (specifically the committees) to be an effective bulwark against executive dominance correlates with global trends. Since the dawn of the modern American (“imperial”) presidency, for instance, power has been firmly rooted in the executive branch.

Thus, rather than excessively criticising the Parliament for failing to live up to the CSG ideals one must perceive these principles “as ideals to work towards” (Carman and Shepherd, 1999: 27). The Commissions’ recommendations are prudent and will most likely result in an improved committee system. Still, if the committees’ remain unable to be a “detailed scrutineer and effective counterweight to the executive” a serious debate will have to take place if Scotland wishes to maintain a system that has functioning checks and balances.

What next?

The key issue now is whether or not the recommendations will be delivered before the next Westminster election by the current UK Labour Government. Thus far we have had mixed signals. The proposal was well received by the UK Government but one wonders whether or not such complex proposals could be realistically enacted in a year (or less), particularly as they attempt to steer their own democratic and banking reforms through Parliament. They may be “kicked into the long grass”; not out of reticence but purely because of the congested legislative timetable or because they are perceived to be a low priority.

The truth is we don’t know. On the one hand we have the Scottish Labour leader Ian Gray stating that the proposals are “complex” [and] will take some time to bring in”, while on the other hand we have other Unionist leaders (including Iain Gray) saying that they are “real momentum” behind these proposals. They hint that the recommendations will be “moved forward quite quickly” though one may reasonably wonder how valid this claim is when another mechanism (cross-party steering group) has been created to deliver these proposals.

All in all its business as usual in devolutionary politics - more smoke, more mirrors. What is irrefutable, however, is that this is an exciting time in Scottish politics, epoch defining even, as we seek to map out how devolution should develop after the Calman Commission. Yet the Scottish people remain the elephant in the room. Our elected representatives continue to affirm that Scots support this, that and everything but the truth is they don’t know - they assume through polls or sporadic consultation exercises/e-discussion forums that this is the case. Clearly, what is needed is a more inclusive, bottom up review of devolution where all Scottish citizens can have their say in the future of the country.

The time is ripe for a radical redistribution of power where it is truly shared between the people of Scotland, the legislators and the Scottish Government. The Commission’s report is neither putting us on a motorway to independence nor a lasting defence of the Union. This particular road less travelled is to a different place - it is called Federalism.

Now is the time that we fulfilled, or at least attempted to, the participative ideals set out in the CSG. The new “devolution default” position is clear: unless there is a compelling national interest not to, all power should be devolved. This isn’t grandiose “new politics”. This is democracy.


Barry McCulloch, Policy Officer

News from Nowhere: Against the Dealmaking Culture

The European elections are over. They were not a success (the winning parties would disagree). Turnout has fallen in every Euro election since 1979, and this one was no different: only 43% of Europeans bothered to go to the polls. In some countries, particularly in Eastern Europe, turnout was embarrassingly low: 25% in Poland and 20% in Slovakia. Furthermore, these elections were not about Europe, except in the broadest "let's stick it to those barmy bureaucrats" sense. What we had was 27 different national elections: in Britain it was about expenses, in France it was about Nicolas Sarkozy's record in government, and in Italy it was about Silvio Berlusconi's personal life. The divide between Europe's enthusiastic elite and its apathetic people is as wide as ever.

So, as the new mandate of the European Parliament convenes, have our political class learned anything? You might think that the shock of the elections would have jolted them into reconsidering the way they do business. The EPs modus operandi has traditionally been based on a cosy consensus between the major political groups, where official posts and legislation are carved up in smoke-filled rooms (of course, smoking is not permitted in the EP building). The advantage of this lies in the ability of smaller groups to occasionally claim their share of the pie, winning legislative victories which would be unobtainable in an adversarial system. The disadvantages are the retardation of a democratic culture, an unwillingness to consider new ideas, and the "lowest common denominator" aspect of European legislation. In addition, popular enthusiasm and engagement with the European Parliament is not likely to be cultivated by a hierarchical culture, where all the key decisions are made by a few barons and then handed down for approval by the peasants (barring the occasional peasant's revolt).

The election of a new President of the European Parliament is a good test of the new mood. The previous President, Hans-Gert Pottering, was a creature of the bureaucracy: a stuffed shirt who would abjure democratic procedure in plenary if it stood in the way of a good deal (as in the climate change package last December where he disallowed all amendments in plenary to speed the vote up). This time, we were all set for a good democratic contest between Jerzy Buzek, a Polish conservative, and Graham Watson of the Lib Dems. Watson ran as the insurgent candidate who would break the consensus culture and revitalise Parliament's institutions. Until yesterday, when he withdrew from the race. His press release reads something like a forced confession during a show trial of the Stalin era: "The EU is mired in a crisis - economic, environmental and constitutional, and the three political families which founded our Union have decided to unite their forces to save it." One could point out that it is precisely during a crisis when it is most important to have vigorous debate and opposing and alternative views. The truth, however, is simple. Watson's group - ALDE (liberals) - have struck a deal with the conservative and socialist groups on committee chairmanships, and Watson had to withdraw as part of the bargain. So, the choice for President is now essentially Buzek....or Buzek.

A cynic would remark that the European Parliament elites go to remarkable lengths to save their members from the bother of actually voting. He might say that: I couldn't possibly comment.

Full Euro election results can be found here.


Daniel Wylie

PMQs = zzzzzzz

The battle lines for the next General Election were clearly drawn at last week’s PMQs: its “Labour investment vs. Tory Cuts”. One could be forgiven for thinking that we were back in the 1980’s as Gordon Brown repeated on several occasions, “we are the party of the many; they are the party of the few”.

This week’s ding-dong was presided over by the new speaker of the House, John Bercow, who one paper described as being ‘underdressed’. New politics indeed!

Picking up from last week, David Cameron repeatedly asked the PM to apologise for ‘false’ claims over govt spending, specifically his claim that ‘capital expenditure will grow until the year of the Olympics’. ‘Government figures show that this is not the case’.

Therein followed mundane political pantomime: my figures are right; yours are wrong; apologise; I have nothing to apologise for; cut, cut cut; spend, spend, spend; and so on. Even the Lib Dems weren’t spared with Brown stating it was them ‘not the Labour party who wish to cut public spending’. Hell hath no fury like Brown’s fury as Nick Clegg found out for sensibly pointing out that ‘balancing the nations’ books is going to take big, difficult, long term decisions’.

As Clegg mentioned policy reversals I wished too that I could reverse out of this bizarre and irrelevant exchange. It was as if there was no political crisis; no unanimous public condemnations over the expenses fracas; no genuine opportunity to renew our democracy.

It was business as usual at the commons, insulating the debate from extraneous political developments. And no, the speaker’s populist assertion that ‘there [was] simply too much noise and the public doesn’t like it’ doesn’t count. One wonders whether or not it is the political elite’s tactic to bore us with this ‘style’ and permanently place us in an apathetic coma.

As the storm clouds continue to hover over Westminster, with no sign yet of the winds of change sweeping in real, meaningful reform, I flicked channels to see the debate on the historic Climate Change Bill in Holyrood. With its open practices and dressed down members this does indeed look like “another place”.

It even has the approval of our Secretary of State, judging by his refreshingly welcome and apparently warm exchange with John Swinney yesterday. Mind you, the sight of two big Scotsmen hugging each other on the nation’s telly was a little much so I’m off to enjoy the sunshine and watch Andy win Wimbledon! It’s like watching PMQs, except the ladies do the grunting!

Barry McCulloch, Policy Officer

Calman: A Taxing Question?

And so it comes down to tax. It always does. Even before its birth, the Scottish Parliament was defined not only by its ability to close the democratic deficit with Westminster but also by its power to raise, or lower, taxation.

Tony Blair’s political masterstroke of including a question on the Tartan Tax in the devolution referendum ensured, amidst howls of political protest (but crucially with the consent of the people) that the Scotland Bill would pass unhindered through the House of Lords.

Is Calman a similarly brilliant power play? Will the proposal to raise the tax varying power from 3p in the pound to 10p (half the Income Tax rate) have a similar political impact, stabilising the next decade of devolution? Will the direct link between representation and taxation finally kill off Independence?

On the plus side, the recommendations from this cross (unionist) party group hit the right notes, at least when judged against the original Westminster score for devolution. Yes, additional tax powers will bring greater responsibility for our MSPs, although this proposal falls way short of fully proportionate tax & spend.

If the fiscal mechanism of taking a slice of the Barnett cake at source and forcing our MSPs to levy it back, or keep marginal tax rates low relative to the rest of the UK, is designed to bring greater responsibility and accountability then it could succeed. Although we’re not going to see a radical tax reduction as public finances are squeezed.

But why should our MSPs suddenly find this greater ability to vary tax any more appealing than before? The 3p variation has never even been seriously debated, let alone implemented. What chance a game-changing10p tax reduction? Nil.

The other changes proposed by the Calman Commission, such as greater power for our MSPs - to lower speed limits, to reduce legal alcohol levels for driving and to cut the amount of airguns in circulation - will no doubt be welcomed by all political parties.

But does this need to revert to legislation when education and positive encouragement fail, demonstrate an active, healthy, participative democracy? Or, does recourse to the law in order to force social behavioural change betray a more fundamental breakdown of trust between the elected and the electorate?

Since the Calman Commission was established just over a year ago the public has become increasingly detached from our expenses-scandalised MPs (whilst being denied the opportunity to kick them out)! Public trust in our politicians has broken down to dangerously anti-democratic levels.

Although the parties, whether through Calman or in their forthcoming party manifesto commitments, are beginning to move on this, none of them appear to have grasped that instead of tinkering with the existing political settlement it needs turned on its head.

Our political class needs to give power back to the people, for example through stronger local democracy, proportional representation (not the pretend variety called AV), and greater public involvement in the design and delivery of public services.

It is against this backdrop that Calman must be seen. A new “devolution default” position is beginning to emerge amongst the electorate and it can be summed up thus: unless there is a compelling national interest not to, all power should be devolved.

Calman is not putting us on a motorway to independence. Neither is it a lasting defence of the Union. This particular road less travelled is to a different place. It is called Federalism. Can our politicians grasp that?

Now that really is a taxing question!



Ross Martin
Policy Director

Renewing Democracy Phase I: Project Report

Report Summary

The introduction of elected mayors in Scotland's cities should be considered in order to provide stronger democratic leadership

The implementation of STV for council elections will ensure increased competition in local elections and introduce choice

The growth and extension of the co-operative movement will strengthen democratic involvement in the political process

The reform of local government taxation can begin to rebuild trust in the political process by improving democratic accountability

The use of more direct democracy, such as referenda and recall votes, would enhance local democracy and strengthen political accountability

Introduction

Our democracy has just undergone its most energetic test for a generation. On May 3rd, Scotland's Parliament and Council elections took place in an uncertain political atmosphere, conditioned by a turnout 4 years ago that began to question the very basis of representative democracy. Although turnout this year appears to have arrested the downward trend of recent times, there have arisen a number of real issues surrounding the parliamentary count in particular, with possible implications for future levels of participation. It is essential that the body politic in Scotland takes steps to not only address the faults in this year’s count, but also looks at the wider context for Renewing Our Democracy.

This project, supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, and established to examine the five key questions of democratic renewal listed below tested the CSPP’s general contention that greater public engagement is required to save the process of politics from terminal decline. Higher levels of engagement, it is argued, will engender increasing levels of trust between politicians and the public, thereby developing a stronger sense of accountability for our democratically elected institutions.

This report details the systems and structures that will be required to renew our democracy, citing examples of best practice, promoting new ideas for and redesigning existing aspects of our mainly outdated methods of public engagement. It describes how the newly elected Scottish Parliament and its partner Councils can begin to restore public’s faith in the framework of representative democracy and how actual public engagement can reshape it.

The five key questions of democratic renewal assessed by the project were;

• Structural change - would Elected Mayors (Provosts) work for Scotland's cities?
• Systemic change - will the introduction of the STV form of PR save Scottish Local Government?
• Public engagement - is direct democracy really workable as a partner to representative democracy?
• Decentralisation - can local, regional and national government work better together to deliver the democratic will of the people?
• Taxation - what way forward is best for local and regional government?

In order to ask these questions, the CSPP organised a range of different opportunities for people involved in, and those who feel themselves on the fringes of, the political process to meet with politicians, policy advisers and others at the decision-making end of our democracy. These events varied in their scale and nature, but were all designed to maximise public engagement in this project, opening out the opportunity to discuss these issues directly with the people who run our democratic institutions.

The CSPP’s three key policy drivers in the field of Public Service Reform ("extending demand management", "introducing local democratic drivers" and "developing a new sense of common ownership") were also run through the discussions, helping to focus minds on how the use of power brings with it a responsibility to exercise it in a manner that can build public confidence, strengthen accountability and renew trust in the political process.

This report is the result of these deliberations.

Tackling the 5 key questions

Although each of the events was focused on one particular question participants took the opportunity to discuss the inter-relationships between these different aspects of our democracy weaving their thoughts through the project and thereby strengthening the overall outcome. The CSPP’s three key PSR policy drivers also provided prisms through which to view each question, with for example, the issue of demand management being a proxy for what is expected to be an increasingly tight budgetary backdrop over the next few years.

1. Structural Change - Elected Mayors for Scotland's Cities?

The series commenced with a very lively debate in the Scottish Parliament, expertly chaired by the respected Scottish political commentator, Ian Macwhirter. This event heard a variety of views on the notion of elected Mayors, or Provosts, for our cities. The strength of singular leadership was seen by many to be an inherent advantage of the mayoral system, as long as appropriate democratic checks and balances were built into the structure, such as a city-wide council elected under proportional representation, to hold the Mayor to account on a day-to-day basis rather than the once in every four years test of public opinion that the current system offers.

Interestingly, the discussion took place in the wake of Edinburgh City Council's failed congestion charging referendum, where the public had vetoed the proposed scheme by a significant majority. In contrast to the London Mayor's decision to implement the UK's first congestion charging scheme the result in Edinburgh was partly seen as an indictment of the structure of the city council's democratic process, in so far as the proposed scheme itself was the result of a political compromise that emerged from the ruling Labour Group's internal politics. Given that the city Labour Group was elected on a minority share of the vote it came as no surprise to many participants that its proposed congestion charging scheme failed. This was seen as a consequence of the ruling group's failure to build a political consensus for even the principle of the scheme, either across the political spectrum within the city council or indeed with its neighbouring (also Labour) councils within the congestion charge catchment area.

Indeed, the retiring Leader of Edinburgh's City Council offered the opinion that a directly elected Mayor would have followed London's lead, seeking endorsement for the principle of a congestion charging scheme at the election and then implemented it. This view was given additional impetus by many participants, in light of Helsinki's decision to implement its congestion charging scheme and then, after effectively a 2 year trial period, hold a referendum on its merits. This approach was commended for both its democratic strength and also its demonstration of strong political leadership.

Another aspect of the discussion was the effect of the London Mayor implementing what is after all one of the most visual examples of the CSPP’s first PSR policy driver - "the extension of demand management". In the Scottish context, at least since the early days of devolution, problems of service supply have invariably been solved not by managing demand, but by increasing levels of service supply. For example, the policies adopted by the Scottish Parliament, with a fair degree of cross-party consensus in both cases, on free personal care and the abolition of up-front tuition fees are supply-side solutions of this kind.

The decision by Ken Livingstone to manage the demand for road space within London's city centre would traditionally have been seen as a policy derived from the right of the old political spectrum. Its overwhelmingly successful introduction, by a political figure of the old left was viewed by most participants as the kind of pragmatic politics that reconnects ordinary people with the political process. In terms of public engagement, it was felt, there was a real lesson for political parties here - not simply to promote change, but to lead it in difficult directions as well.

Policy Outcome 1:
The introduction of Elected Mayors would provide stronger leadership for Scotland's Cities and reconnect the political process with the public.


2. The Systemic Challenge - STV for Scotland's Councils?

The opportunity to take part in a mock STV election featured prominently in this event, particularly as a graphic demonstration that knowledge of the nuts and bolts of the counting mechanism is not a necessary pre-condition for an effective and well-targeted campaign under this system. Participants were mainly, by the nature of many such events, self-selected enthusiasts although a number of those who did attend had not been advocates of the system but were keen to understand how best to operate within it, either as political contenders, as council officers or as individuals who engage with local authorities.

The session, held in the STUC* offices in Glasgow, was given strong political and emotional resonance with a contribution from the Leader of the Alliance party in Northern Ireland, David Ford MLA. This first hand account of the impact of the STV system on the politics of Northern Ireland, and in particular, the nature of party campaigning where real competition exists on each part of the political spectrum, was an inspiration to all those who attended. In the words of one attendee, it was clear that STV brings politics closer to people as it "ensures real competition for every vote".

Increased competition in local elections was seen as a very attractive replacement to the "once-every-four-years door knocking" of the First Past the Post system and thought likely to encourage greater public engagement with the political process. This introduction of political competition within each electoral ward was also seen as a change that would, eventually, lead to closer political co-operation within individual and across neighbouring councils. It was strongly felt that this closer co-operation would result from many more possible 'political synapses' forming between individual members who may connect politically, regardless of their position within a particular party group or on a given council.

This would also move local councillors on from their outdated use of protective and possessive terminology such as "my ward", and towards a more inclusive mind-set regarding the community which they are fortunate to represent alongside others, more often than not from a different party.

It was agreed that under STV the majority of the population would be represented by someone with whom they could identify, even partially, having cast their vote for a winner and not, as was the case, for one of the many who didn't get elected. The opportunity for people who generally align themselves with one particular political tradition, a strong lesson from Northern Ireland, to be represented by someone from that part of the evolving political spectrum was also seen as a strengthening of democracy.

Another issue which arose during this event was the importance of introducing political plurality into the day to day governance of some areas of Scottish local government, where massive majorities of single party councillors have until now been elected on an increasingly small, minority, share of the vote. The implementation of STV, and the ongoing competition that comes with it, was therefore recognised to be an excellent example of the CSPP’s second key PSR policy driver, the "introduction of local democratic drivers".

Policy Outcome 2:
The implementation of STV for council elections will ensure ongoing competition in the local political marketplace

*The CSPP would like to record its thanks to the Scottish Trades Union Congress for their warm hospitality for this event.

3. Decentralisation - Partnership in Power?

The decentralisation event provided a number and range of ideas and initiatives indirectly proportional to the number of people who attended. This group looked at both structural and systemic solutions to democratic decline, promoting a number of ideas that, it was agreed, would suit the post devolved political settlement in Scotland.

Given the almost consensual nature of the Scottish body politic - on social issues at least - and the converging of the mainstream political parties into what the CSPP has previously termed a Social Democratic Soup the co-operative movement was regarded as an appropriate way in which to increase public engagement in service design and delivery, and thereby in the political process, without the use of the 'sharp policy tool' of private sector involvement.

N.B. the BBC carried out a poll in the pre-election week indicating that the number one political concern of the public is the involvement of the private sector in public services.

The use of a wide range of third sector organisations was discussed, and this featured in a follow-up event held in partnership with the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations entitled "What Government for Scotland?"

However, the main focus during this decentralisation debate was on the use of co-operative models, given the very strong heritage of the co-operative movement in Scotland and its cross party political attractiveness. It was strongly felt that the co-operative models utilised in areas as diverse as housing, health and football were worthy of consideration for other parts of the public sector devolving power and responsibility to the local level and thereby increasing both individual and collective stakes in the political process.

Indeed, the original emergence of the Co-Op Party was as a direct result of political frustration with the mainstream political movements of the time and it was agreed that the decline in voter turnout, which has been apparent for some years now, is an indication of individual frustration at the lack of coherent collective responses to common problems faced by communities, such as anti-social behaviour. The co-operative movement is an excellent way in which individuals can come together to solve particular problems by designing their own solutions and delivering improvements to those aspects of public life that suffer from disengagement.

Examples of successful co-operative organisations included a number in the housing sector, where it is notable that attempts to introduce other forms of tenant participation, e.g. through the housing stock transfer ballots in a number of local authority areas, have failed spectacularly. Other fine working examples included; a range of organisations in the care sector, community transport providers, health sector groupings (e.g. doctors and dentists) and top tier European Football Clubs, such as FC Barcelona and Real Madrid!

The participants were of the view that other sectors could benefit from this public hands-on approach, for example, would it possible for rural schools to be run more effectively and efficiently, by a co-operative that included the community, the teachers and the other staff involved? Is it possible to conceive of local transport co-operatives that organise public, school and other bus services?

The participants discussed these possibilities for the co-operative movement within the context of the CSPP's third key PSR policy driver "developing a new sense of common ownership".

It was strongly felt that by giving people a real stake in the key outcomes of the political process, i.e. the services and facilities that politicians seek to provide once elected, the co-operative movement can play a major role in renewing our democracy. It was widely recognised that the individualist nature of our increasingly consumerist society can be tackled in a positive way that enables individuals to come together around a common concern and take collective action.

Policy Outcome 3:
The growth and extension of the Co-operative movement will strengthen public involvement in the political process.


4. Paying for Local Government - Representation without Taxation?

Taxation is now at the centre of Scottish political discourse, with the parties having put forward a range of replacements or alterations to the Council Tax in the current election campaign. This event predicted that tax would indeed take central stage and sought to deliberate over the various structures and systems of local taxation that were likely to feature in the short, medium and long term.

A very lively debate, chaired by the respected Scotsman journalist, Bill Jamieson, was held in the Scottish Parliament, with representatives of the two major change proposals, i.e. a Local Income Tax and a range of Green Taxes - putting their case to a cross-section of the political community. The participants debated a variety of proposed taxes against the backdrop where, as one participant put it, "no taxes are popular".

The merits of each suggested form of taxation were discussed including the proposals, as they existed at that stage, of each of the main parties contesting the Scottish Parliament elections.

The merits and disadvantages of different forms of local tax raising were discussed and it was agreed that there were advantages and disadvantages to all the alternative proposals.

As part of the discussion it emerged that in each suggested instance of change there would be a significant minority of overall financial losers. It was felt in discussion that this would pose a challenge to each of the parties proposing change since it was recognised that those benefiting from such chance tend to keep silent while the losers complain vigorously.

It was also suggested by some discussants that the manner in which all parties appeared to have peremptorily rejected the very thorough Burt proposals as not even meriting discussion was partially indicative of this phenomenon.

In addition to the form of taxation the issue of the imbalance between revenue raised directly by local government and that handed out by central government was seen as an area of huge concern. It was universally agreed that local government's over-reliance on central funding skews the power relationship between these two different levels of the state, and also denies local communities the opportunity to make a direct link between taxation that is levied from them and the representation of them. Furthermore, the inability to link inputs and outputs, i.e. the levels of local taxation with the levels of services provided, was seen as a fundamental fracture in the relationship between the elected and the electorate.

Policy Outcome 4
The reform of Local Government Taxation can begin to rebuild trust in the political process

5. Public Engagement - Is Direct Democracy possible?

The series finale was opened by the retiring Presiding Officer, the Rt. Hon George Reid MSP with a very reflective assessment of how the Scottish Parliament has sought to engage the public during its first two terms. The success of the Scottish Parliament's committee system, and in particular the Petitions Committee, the fact that over a million members of the public have visited the Holyrood building and the exciting progress made by the annual Festival of Politics all demonstrate positive ways in which politicians can better engage with the public.

The Presiding Officer did however go further, asking whether forms of Direct Democracy were applicable to the Scottish political scene, citing 'recall votes', localism and referenda as examples of mechanisms that may well have a positive impact on both the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Local Government. The progress of information technology, even since the new Scottish Parliament was created, has been staggering and it was recognised that software and systems were now available for politicians and others involved in the political process to improve voter engagement.

An aspect of this IT revolution, is the use of mobile phones, with so many possible applications for Direct Democracy, e.g. the new school councils gaining instant feedback on proposals such as the healthy eating initiative through text messaging, tenants associations being able to carry out community security through phone alerts and of course the future prospect of voting by text message. These opportunities for instantaneous feedback on policy proposals, for an ongoing dialogue with the community or for a more engaging method of voting are just a few examples of where technology can be utilised to significantly strengthen public engagement in the political process.

Other forms of direct democracy were also discussed, as indicated above. 'Recall' votes on either individual issues, on the ruling Coalition of a Council or even on the Scottish Executive could be considered as a mechanism by which politicians could cede control back to the public, changing the nature of the relationship between the elected and the elector. This particular mechanism was seen by many as a means of rebalancing power away from an increasingly distant political elite and back to an increasingly disengaged electorate, either avoiding unpopular policy decisions or simply forcing those elected to take decisions on our behalf to explain their own thinking and seek popular understanding, if not support for a particular course of action.

The notion of a 'new localism' has been gathering pace recently with a wide cross-section of the body politic now debating a number of variations to this particular policy theme. This event, and others in the series, discussed a number of different systems and structures that could play their part in the development of a new localism, including the democratisation of the quangotocracy in Scotland, where the majority of the Scottish Executive's budget is spent by unelected bodies. Although a number of suggestions for the democratisation of quangos were discussed, e.g. directly elected Regional Health Boards, it was widely felt that a coherent package of reform was required, one that looked at the issue in the round.

Of course, it would be remiss of the participants at this particular time, when the future governance arrangements for Scotland have been at the heart of the election campaign, not to discuss the use of referenda in the process of politics. Of course, there were those amongst the participants who believe that representative democracy negates the need for referenda, as it entrusts those whom we elect with decision-making on our behalf. However, the case for referenda was also strongly made, and for the use of such a decision-making mechanism at various levels of government. For example, voting on moral issues such as the abolition of Clause 28, could be a policy area that is given back to the electorate, rather than simply categorising them ‘issues of conscience’ that are free from the discipline of the party whip system.

Although there is always a difficulty in deciding what question to ask, if an unprompted answer is actually desired, it was generally felt that the careful and considered use of referenda, as done to create the Scottish Parliament through the two-vote ballot, can be a democratically cathartic experience, determining "the settled will" of the people, at least for a few years!

Policy Outcome 5:
The use of Direct Democracy, such as referenda and recall votes, can strengthen democratic accountability.


Ross Martin
Policy Director
Centre for Scottish Public Policy
May 2007

Edited by Professor Richard Kerley, Vice Principal, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh
----------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 1- The Advisory Group

The Renewing Democracy Project was overseen by the following members of its Advisory Group, chaired by Mark Lazarowicz MP, to whom the CSPP would like to extend its gratitude for their insightful input, energetic assistance and rigorous initial analysis of the issues to be discussed;

Sarah Boyack MSP Scottish Labour MSP for Edinburgh Central
John Curtice University of Strathclyde
Cara Gillespie The Scottish Green Party
Professor Richard Kerley Queen Margaret University
Mark Lazarowicz MP Labour MP for Edinburgh North & Leith
Ross Martin Policy Director, Centre for Scottish Public Policy
Sir Neil McIntosh CBE The Electoral Commission
Kenneth Munro Chair, Centre for Scottish Public Policy
Ken Ritchie Electoral Reform Society, Scotland
Amy Rodger Electoral Reform Society, Scotland
Michael Russell MSP SNP MSP for South of Scotland
Martin Sime Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations
Paolo Vestri Scottish Local Government Information Unit
Melanie Ward NUS Scotland President 2004 – 06

Before You Vote.......

European Parliament Elections - June 4 2009



Context

During April and May 2009 the Centre for Scottish Public Policy (CSPP), the European Movement and the Hansard Society embarked on an educational project around Scotland that was motivated by the lack of coverage and predicted low electoral turnout in the European Parliament elections taking place on the 4th June 2009.

Extending from Aberdeen to Melrose, it raised awareness of what the European Parliament (EP) does and the impending elections, while giving you the unique opportunity to hear from and scrutinise prospective and existing MEPs.

What follows is a brief overview of the six parties that were involved: their manifestos and their candidates.

Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party

Struan Stevenson and John Purvis CBE are the current MEPs though the latter has recently retired. Mr. Stevenson is number one on the list. The others are: Belinda Don, Helen Gardner, Donald MacDonald, Gerald Michaluk and PJ Lewis. All Conservative MEPs have agreed to leave the main centre-right grouping in the EP, the European People’s Party (EPP), after the election and form a new group.



The manifesto’s clarion call is a ‘vote for change’. A key aspect of this change is rejecting the Lisbon Treaty, the ‘only major party supporting a referendum on the constitution’. In rejecting further ‘central control from Brussels’, they will ‘not take Britain into the euro’ and ‘return social and employment legislation to British national control’. The latter point was emphasised by Mr Stevenson MEP at our hustings in relation to the Working Times Directive.

Like the vast majority of parties they proclaim that ‘tackling climate change is a central priority for the EU’ while also stating the need to reform the Common Fisheries Policy. Click here for their election broadcast.

In regards to their achievements (see manifesto p6-9), they include: introducing the EU Small Business Act; ‘secured early agreement’ in the EP to cut carbon emissions by 20% by 2020; introduced the ‘most far reaching rules on transparency on MEPs expenses of any UK political parry’; and dismantled trade barriers between the EU and the U.S. by taking a ‘leading role in the Transatlantic Economic Council’.

Scottish Green Party

Presently the Greens have no MEPs. Elaine Morrison is number one on the list and is joined by: Chas Booth; Kirsten Robb; Alastair Whitelaw; Ruth Dawkins; and Peter McColl. They are members of the European Green Party, the fifth largest group in the EP with 43 MEPs.



Under the banner of ‘let’s reclaim our economy [and our] communities’, the manifesto asserts that now is the time to ‘choose a new sort of politics’. This means delivering on ‘high-skilled, well paid green jobs to develop the infrastructure of the future’ and create a ‘green new deal for Europe’.

Like other parties the economic turbulence has largely framed their manifesto and thus they call for a new sustainable economic model. This will include: EU & global ‘regulation of big banks’; create a ‘European living wage’; keeping ‘public services public’; and Introduce ‘corporate transparency requirements similar to Freedom of Information laws’.

The Greens also put a considerable amount of attention on ‘a responsible EU’, centred on the notion of implementing ‘fair trade rules’ in a new era of fairer globalisation, one that strengthens the voice ‘developing countries’ in global governance.

Lastly, and heavily emphasised by Ms Morrison at our event, was the need to ‘reclaim our environment’. No ‘longer can governments chase the dream of everlasting economic growth’. To combat climate change they will: ensure that strongest deal is made at Copenhagen summit; campaign for ‘laws requiring EU companies to account for all of their carbon pollution’; and protect local fisheries ban GM crops.

Scottish Labour

David Martin and Catherine Stihler are the current MEPs. Mary Lockhart, Paul McAleavey, Kirsty Connell and Nasim Khan complete the list. They are part of the European Socialist group (PES) which has 214 MEPs in the EP. Click here for their election broadcast.



The manifesto is driven by the ‘pledge to fight for jobs’ and create a ‘better future’. Like other parties the narrative focused extensively on the financial crisis and the action needed ‘to create jobs and build a stronger, fairer and safer country’. In this light ‘our membership of the EU is more important than ever’.

There was a strong emphasis on the cross-border problems Scotland faces (climate change, global recession, terrorism etc) and the need for coordinated action, a theme echoed by David Martin at our events. ‘There are no Scotland only solutions’. Indeed, the manifesto highlighted the importance of tackling climate change and ‘building a low carbon society’. Mr Martin stated that the 2020 targets (see manifesto p13-14) were the most significant achievement in the EP’.

In addition they outlined their ‘strong’ legislative record in the Parliament (and domestically) which have ‘achieved practical results’. These include: the EU Social Chapter (guaranteed Scottish people the right to take 5 weeks paid holiday, more maternity leave etc); leading the European recovery plan to tackle the economic crisis; and introduced a ‘European Arrest Warrant’ making it more difficult for criminals to avoid arrest by moving between EU countries.

Scottish Liberal Democrats

Elspeth Attwooll is the current MEP though she has recently retired. The number one on the list is George Lyon who featured prominently in our events. Euan Robson, Robert Aldridge, Patsy Kenton, Douglas Herbison and Clive Sneddon complete the list. They are members of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) in the EP with 99 members.



To the Lib Dems this election is a litmus test for Scotland. Either we choose to ‘work together for a safer, stronger world’ or face the big issues in ‘isolation’. ‘Britain should lead in Europe to tackle the big issues’ that pay no respect to borders.

The thrust of the manifesto is to demonstrate that ‘we are stronger together, poorer apart’. Economic globalisation necessitates that ‘we work together with European countries to promote jobs and growth in the current recession. Through cooperation the Lib Dems will: strengthen the economy sustainably by providing ‘more jobs & opportunities for businesses’; fight climate change; and tackle international crime and terrorism while upholding our civil liberties’. Mr Lyon stated that these were the ‘key priorities’ (see manifesto p7-9).

Their track record over the last five years includes: supporting the European Arrest Warrant, what Mr Lyon described as the ‘biggest achievement of the EP in the last five years’; consumer protection and increased competition in aviation and telecommunications whilst backing the ‘EU Health Card’ (see p12); and promoted a better ‘life-work balance’ by ‘extending maternity leave’.

Scottish National Party

Ian Hudghton and Alyn Smith are the current MEPs. Aileen McLeod, Drew Hendry, Duncan Ross and Gordon Archer complete the list. They are members of the Greens/Free Alliance group in the EP with 43 members. Click here for their election broadcast.

While the Conservatives and UKIP wish to preserve and promote British sovereignty, the SNP want to alter it with Scotland becoming an independent nation state and fully-fledged member of the European Union – a ‘stronger voice for Scotland in Europe’. This independence narrative is central to this manifesto as is the focus on economic recovery, job creation and renewable energy.

A key maxim for the SNP in these elections is building on the ‘achievements of the Scottish Government’. This translates into numerous ‘pledges’ (see manifesto p2): ‘protecting Scottish jobs’; ‘opportunities for education and skills’; and ‘standing up for rural communities’. Leading the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the Common Fisheries Policy are also key areas.

Both Mr Smith and Mr Hudgton at out events stressed their records in the last session of the EP. A key achievement to both was the ‘ambitious targets’ set out in the ‘climate change package’. Another was the ‘success in the CAP Health Check Process’, to name but a few.

UK Independence Scotland Party

Currently UKIP Scotland (from here on in “UKIP”) has no MEPs in Scotland although they have nine members in the EP. Peter Adams is number one on the list and is joined by Paul Henke, Donald Mackay, Peter Nielson, Michael Arthur and Paul Wiffen.



The raison d’être of UKIP is straight-forward: withdraw Britain from the European Union and replace our membership with a ‘genuine free trade agreement similar to those enjoyed by Switzerland and Norway’. Peter Adams made it clear that UKIP rejects political union but not economic union as was the case in the European Economic Community (EEC).

UKIP, however, are not a single-issue party as their campaign promises illustrates. An area of particular importance is immigration where they affirm that they are the only party that have consistently ‘voted against the open-door immigration policy’. We must ‘take control of our national borders and impose our own immigration rules’. Another key area is agriculture and fisheries where ‘European policies have been an ecological disaster’.

Peter Adams made it clear that UKIP are the ‘real independents’ in this election who are committed to uncovering the stream of ‘lies’ surrounding the European project and dedicated to delivering a ‘free democratic, independent Britain’.

Click here for all party election broadcasts for these elections.

A Radical Distribution of Power?

As the democratic crisis continues the political class have been reacting -some better than others. Undeniably, the Conservative leader David Cameron is top of the class, if such a thing is possible. Cameron, more than any other Westminster leader, has seized the agenda and consistently pushed the policy boundaries, displaying a ‘steely mixture of ruthlessness and opportunism’.

Yesterday’s speech at the Open University marked Cameron’s apogee where he set out his plans to reform the UK political system. Pointing out that the Tory scrutiny panel for MPs expenses was merely the beginning, he proposed that: the number of MPS should be cut; parliamentary terms fixed at four years; permit more free votes in the House; introduce a ‘right of initiative nationally’ where, with enough signatures, people can get their proposals debates in Parliament; and introduce further subsidiarity:

From the state to citizens; from the government to parliament; from Whitehall to communities. From Brussels to Britain; from judges to the people; from bureaucracy to democracy.

Generally it has been very well received with commentators praising its analytical precision and its ability to outline a narrative that chimes with the growing discontent. Certainly, Cameron’s ability to address both the short term and long term political problems is to be applauded. Indeed, he is accurate in arguing that the fundamental cause of this crisis is:

…the result of people's slow but sure realisation that they have very little control over the world around them.

Despite these reformist proclamations there is a deep tension permeating Cameron’s speech and it is this tension that strikes at the heart of his progressive Conservative philosophy. It is the need to rock the boat, but not too much; to tread carefully and cautiously, to usher in change but maintain order; introduce reforms but maintain tradition. It will be said that this is a problem for all politicians irrespective of their ideological compass. This is true but for Cameron the problem is far more entrenched as he looks to appease both the progressives and the traditionalists.

Listening to his speech the ideological friction between traditional and progressive Conservatism was audible. A ‘radical redistribution of power’ is urgently needed but electoral reform is off the table. Our politics are broken but so too is our society. Indeed to Cameron the two are inextricably linked in a causal relationship. There is mass ‘social breakdown’ (‘record violent crime, record teenage pregnancy’) because of the ‘leeching of power and control away from the individual and the community into the hands of the elite’. Put another way, centralising, power hungry political elites = a broken society.

David Cameron’s response, indeed all Westminster leaders, to the current political crisis regardless of the incisive oratory ultimately fail. They fail and thus lack authenticity because they are reacting. Would they have delivered ‘radical’ plans to reform our politics had the Telegraph not received details of MPs expenses?

Notwithstanding this, Cameron’s contribution is welcome and deservedly leads in the reformist sprint. Britain is on the precipice of significant democratic alteration. It remains to be seen whether progressive Conservatism is the model to deliver a new politics.

I doubt that it is. The larger question emanating from this crisis as the political class engage in an ‘I’m more transparent and progressive than you’ competition is whether or not they can be trusted to undertake a fundamental redesign of our democracy.

In all the reviews, speeches and commissions currently operating there is a vital component missing. Yes, people are the elephant in the room. A representative democratic solution to this crisis will not suffice. What we need now is a citizen-centred approach to deliver deep constitutional renewal.