We are agreed that hereditary peers should have no right to sit in the House of Lords. So should the peers be elected? That is the most democratic solution; the trouble is that elections would almost certainly develop along party-political lines, so that the House of Lords would be a kind of copy of the House of Commons - with the same sort of career politicians on the seats. So should they instead be appointed by some kind of independent committee? If so we would probably continue to see lively specialists with a lifetime of interesting experience filling the seats and challenging the government - but it would not be democratic.
This is an intriguing example of a fundamental problem in politics: for the best kind of democracy do you need always to have democratic methods? Or should 'wise men' make decisions rather than the voters? At the time of writing, the British Parliament - and the British people - have not made up their minds.
(e) The Centre versus Local Government.
How centralised is our government? In all countries tensions exist between the centre and the provinces. Local government is always wanting both more support and more independence; central government is always wanting to reduce payment to the provinces and to control their powers. In Britain, in the struggle back and forth between local government and the centre, the centre has been winning all the time for about thirty years. Since local councils are so much closer to the electorate (it is easy to ring up your Town Hall and ask to speak to your local councillor) local government is much more immediately responsive to the wishes of the electorate than central government. Central government argues that it deals with the major problems of the economy, of industry and trade, of law and order, of the country's basic infrastructure of water, power, transport systems, health, education and so forth, so that it cannot and should not immediately adapt to the changing wishes of the electorate. Local governments say that they know what the people really want and that they need the money to carry out their programmes. (Councils raise money by local taxes but need massive financial support from central government as well.)
In comparison with other democratic countries, our local councils have limited powers, and whichever Government is in power at the Houses of Parliament, it is not keen on decentralisation. Except for the Mayor of London, we have very few executive Mayors who can take real decisions as in Russia (and elsewhere). Voters are not keen on them - they prefer councils to flamboyant characters. Yet few of us doubt that we need local lively democratic local government. Moreover, effective protest from the provinces helps to prevent our central government from turning into an autocratic power, issuing decrees without much reference to the realities of everyday life.
(f) The 'European' factor.
I have suggested that our Government can be too powerful in relation to Parliament. Recently the Government, like other governments of the European Union, has had to accept much EU legislation. Mostly such legislation concerns the rights of all people of the European Union to - for example - move around freely and work in each others' countries; attend university in another country if they compete successfully with students from that country; have limits on the hours that they work each week. The EU also requires member governments to tackle environmental problems and make places clean and safe for EU citizens. These rules and regulations which have, of course, been debated in national parliaments and within the European Union law-making process are supported by the British government, but sometimes seem to be an irritating restriction to policies they would like to implement. So in this respect, our Government has checks on its power, as well as the fundamental check of the ballot box. We can always throw our government out and elect another one.
By the standards of most politics and most politicians all over the world, the British system and the vast majority of its practitioners are more-or-less free from corruption. Within the political system there are connections, influences, what we call 'nods and winks' and, in some areas, dubious official patronage of non-government organisations. But there are strict restrictions on how much money parties can spend on elections, so candidates for parliamentary elections do not need any money personally. If they spend beyond the legal limit their campaign is declared unlawful. The rival parties are longing to declare that a successful campaign is unlawful, so everyone is careful to stick to the rules.
Since the Prime Minister and other Ministers are chosen from among MPs, money is again not the issue. Several of our Prime Ministers have come from poor or very poor backgrounds; unlike the American President you do not have to be rich - or to acquire a lot of money - to become the most powerful person in the land. In addition, our two party-system almost always ensures that one party is, without question, in power, so we do not suffer from unlawful influence in the making of political coalitions. Our MPs get decently paid but are not among the highest paid in the land. By international standards they are closely monitored and liable to end up in court if they cheat.
Even if they want to be villains, (and the vast majority start off wanting to help their people and their country) there are less exhausting ways of making money!
On the other hand, by Western standards, ours has traditionally been a very secretive government. It is characteristic of those in power to be suspicious of knowledge let loose among those whom they rule. They want to tell us 'It is right and necessary for us to know, but dangerous and damaging for you to know!' Democratic government is supposed to be accountable to the people, and to be ready to answer truthfully questions put by the people. Governments, in response, find reasons for keeping silent and the British government (of whatever party) was good at keeping silent. For many years it claimed the right to silence over all kinds of information 'in the interests of public security'. This is a difficult argument to challenge, although it has been successfully challenged in the courts.
In 2000, the Labour Government introduced the Freedom of Information Act. This act has enabled ordinary citizens to find out what is going on in all our public institutions.
One matter which has come to light as a result of the Freedom of Information Act is the amount of expenses claimed by MPs for their accommodation and work. Some MPs abused the system. Others were careless. Most behaved decently. The public was outraged at those who claimed money to which they were not entitled. Behind their anger was the assumption that British MPs should behave scrupulously. People believe that politics should not be an activity for cheating the public out of their own money. Politicians are there to serve the public interest - and to be fair, most of them become politicians to try to do that.
Nevertheless, politicians in this country (as in others) are not very popular as a group although you will often hear someone say, 'Our MP is a very good local MP, even if I don't agree with her (or his) politics. The problem is not our MP but the other ones.' If that remark is repeated all over the country, it is quite a tribute to our political class.
The most common complaint by ordinary people is that party politics leads to dullness and hypocrisy. 'They all just follow the party line and copy what their leader wants them to say. Why can't we get rid of party politics, find a general consensus and simply give people what they want?'