Right on cue, out comes Dave this morning with a shed-load of industrial-grade Elastoplast. Our political system needs big changes, he says, and then proposes … er … a series of small changes. The whole process of how something becomes law is failing, he says. There are far too many laws being pushed through, with far too little genuine scrutiny from MPs. Excessive "whipping" of MPs by party hierarchies further limits genuine scrutiny. This too has to change, he says.

View full article here

No nursey won't heal anything,nursey likes the status quo or nursey would have spoken out before and been a proper opposition party.Until we get a party that actually listens and asks questions of the electorate we are powerless,just how they want us.

Can anyone else do better?

Two parties.

One get us out of the EU, restore our freedoms and values to pre 1973.

The other to cede the rest of it to the EU and let the regions be governed from Brussels.

Then hold a General Election and the public would have a clear choice instead of another five years of antics in the Westminster monkey temple!

Parties are the problem, and the poodles that populate them. Our political system, if used properly, is quite capable of sorting this mess out. Our unwritten Constitution doesn't quite mean we can claim whatever powers we like and say they were already there, or does it ...

Parties are the problem , like the Communist Party was the problem in the Eastern Bloc countries. It tried its own reforms, but what was needed was its removal of power.

Our Constitution is written - it's just not codified into one document!

I should also say that I try to criticise and scrutinise the Conservatives' policies - but rarely does anyone link to or read my website. I even wrote a 10,000 word dissertation on it recently (Booker and North are quoted a few times).

"David Cameron is merely continuing the Conservative tradition of supporting the EU project, albeit with one or two slight, but irrelevant, presentational differences."

Hmmmm ... whatever gave you that idea?

You for one, perhaps? Anyway, these things had to be explained in such a way so as to constitute my dissertation being 'valid' - apparently.

Well, no. You seem to forget that the Communist Party had monopoly of power and used it rather nastily. If you really think there are no differences then I suggest a quick course of reading about history of Communism. Amazing what you might find there.

Also: pre-1973 values, eh, Pipesmoker? That would be the country in the grip of trade union power, state control of industry and two parties basically agreeing on everything in line with Butskellism? Just the ticket.

I really thought we could do better than this. Of course parties are not the problem. In parliament as with any other walks of life, people will seek to co-operate and work together with others who share their values and aspirations. Formalise those groupings and you have parties!

The problem is the objectives of parties in parliament - they are there either to support the government or to oppose the government with a view to replacing it. None of the MPs are there primarily to carry out the primary functions of parliament, and in particular to scrutinise the executive. That is the core problem.

We`re not saying all parties are the problem, but the tribalism of the big three certianly are, and like the Communists in Eastern Europe, only want reforms to go so far, and only as far as they hold the power. (I know about the way the Commies kept power )
They are only getting votes because of this tribalism, and mainly to keep the "other lot " out of government. We need more independent thinkers there, not the crowd thinking ones we have now.

Give me a chance Richard. I have been out today! Admittedly I have not addressed the flaws in the select committee system. Instead I have taken a step back to focus on where I think Cameron fails this test out of the gate... http://tonysharp.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-david-camerons-proposals-are.html

As you will see, I think the problem is not so much domestic as external.

Haven't you heard of this? I am sorely disappointed.

You are right of course ... my co-editor thinks the same. However, you could take the view that it will be an re-invigorated parliament that gets us out of the EU, so restoring the independence of parliament is a necessary step towards achieving our freedom.

Do you? Really? Been hiding your light under a bushel, clearly.

This is our target.