Jack Straw says he wants a more effective House of Commons, and for MPs to do a better job of scrutinising and amending legislation. He points out, quite rightly, that a perception that this is a job often left to the House of Lords can only damage the reputation of MPs.
There are several factors at work here. One of them is the “Whip” system, whereby each party tells its MPs how to vote. Of course, all parties in all systems need to organise their members - but Britain takes this to an extreme: the government has lost just one vote in the Commons since 1997 - on the detention of terrorist suspects for 90 days.
Although scarcely a week goes by without the press reporting a rebellion or threat of rebellion in the Commons, even the gravest of these usually involve only twenty or so MPs. Serious opposition to aspects of proposed legislation, be it on matters of wording, implementation or policy comes from the House of Lords - one of the reasons it is so frequently referred to as the “revising chamber”. If they wish to exercise independent judgement, Members of the Commons face the serious disadvantage of having to seek re-relection, and the possibility that their party might “de-select” them as a candidate, destroying most chance of retaining their jobs. In addition, those seeking ministerial posts would be ill-advised to disobey an instruction to vote with the government.
The situation is somewhat different in America, where three factors give the members of Congress greater independence from their parties. The most important is the primary system. This allows registered voters to exercise control over who will stand in their district for each party, breaking the control of central party machines. Secondly, American Congressmen are responsible for much of their own fund-raising and campaigning (this brings its own problems, of course, but that’s an issue for another day). In Britain, most money at elections is spent by central parties. Lastly, members of Congress are not also seeking office in the Executive branch of government. In Britain, a large number of MPs hold government posts, and are bound to support its actions even more so than Back-Bench MPs from the governing party.
The result is that the Government of the day expects (and is expected by the press) to win every vote in the Commons. Even small rebellions are the stuff of national news, with seemingly endless commentators questioning whether the government is losing its authority. Commentators, MPs and the Government alike refuse to draw the distinction between supporting an administration, supporting its policies and supporting its specific proposals for legislation. If Straw intends to tackle this rather absurd aspect of British political life, one can only wish him the very best of luck.