Iran: evidence that the UK needs a revised democracy

The illegal declaration of war on Iran by Netanyahu, quickly endorsed by a miffed Trump, who was not happy when his America First mantra was outgunned by Israel First. His characteristic dismissal of the United Nations and belief in the USA's right to exert its power have not just disrupted but exploded the world's peace efforts. His lack of diplomatic skills meant that the UK and Europe, supposedly NATO allies, were not informed until the day before the attack. Starmer, unsurprisingly, refused to join the attacks given the lack of legal justification and with the nagging experience of the Iraq war in mind.

The consequences of the action are not going well for Trump as the war has cascaded to all the Gulf States. Deaths are already in the thousands, retaliatory strikes have been made on American bases and oil refineries across the Gulf, oil and gas prices have rocketed, and the cost of living is on an upward trajectory. According to the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll, only 27% of Americans public agreee with Trump's war, and that seems to be diminishing every time Pete Hegseth, the appropriately named Secretary of War, updates with undisguised glee the damage and deaths inflicted on Iran.

Meanwhile, in the UK, the latest Survation poll shows that 69% of the electorate oppose the war or believe we should remain neutral. Only 6% agree with Kemi Badenoch's argument that we should have joined the war effort. No surprise there, she is ferociously binary on most issues, and belligerence is her core value in any debate. On the assumption that Farage is in Trump's pocket, it suggests that the so-called right-wing parties, by being in hock to Trump's American policies, are totally out of touch with the UK electorate. Trump is becoming one of the defining issues influencing voters; woe betide parties that have supported his fiction of facts and flip-flappery.

Set this against the most recent opinion polls in the UK. These suggest that Reform and the Conservatives would receive around 45%of the vote, with the vote for the centre-left parties: Labour, Greens, Lib Dems, and the Scottish and Welsh Independents split fairly evenly. With little likelihood of the Conservative and Labour parties obtaining a clear majority, it is surely time to introduce a proportional voting system for the House of Commons that accommodates the multi-party reality that is the new norm. Reform and the Greens, influenced by the Gorton and Denton by-election and the opinion polls, would prefer to risk continuing with the present first-past-the-post system. We need a democratic abacus that is fairer but also retains strong links between the MP and the constituency.

The UK Parliament is no longer fit for purpose. In a bicameral system, do we need 650 MPs? Reducing the Commons to 450 MPs would still leave it larger than the average representation in the parliaments of the six largest European Union countries, and 450 MPs would match the capacity of the benches in the chamber.  It would also allow them to focus on national policies and possibly reduce their interference in local affairs that are the responsibility of Councils. 

Similarly, how can we justify 850 members of the House of Lords? A second chamber focusing on scrutiny and revising legislation would work better with a combination of elected representatives from the regions, together with independently chosen tribunes for their specialist knowledge, and a people's jury (boule), drawn to represent the wider public. In other words, providing a bicameral system where the revising/scrutiny function (Senate) is independent of the Commons and comprises a balance of elected representatives, a comprehensive range of expert opinion and a representative voice of the public. It would be more balanced, nuanced and about a third of the size of the House of Lords; again, this would match the capacity on the benches. This approach would take some of the elements from the earlier democracies in Athens and Rome, along with directly elected members.