Roger Bird is an entrepreneur, and author. He is Conservative councillor on Fareham Borough Council and was previously a Wandsworth councillor.

Ministers are often held accountable for decisions which they have no power to affect. Many powers have been handed over to Quangos (Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisations). Even an early episode of Yes Minister was focused on this problem.

Especially noticeable in the fields of healthcare and the environment, even contentious areas such as migration are handled by arm’s length bodies such as the Border Force.

The coalition government made a start on tackling this problem. Francis Maude had some success and the move towards directly elected Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners was a step towards democratic control of devolved powers.

Rather than merging or abolishing Quangos, there is a quicker and more logical solution. Take back direct democratic control. Here’s how we could do it:

Which bodies should we elect?

Company directors and charity trustees can be voted in or out at an AGM. Quangos are immune from such infusions of new blood.

There are examples of public bodies which operate a more enlightened way. In 1871 the Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators were established by statute to oversee the running of the local heath and common land, an area later made famous by its mythical inhabitants, the Wombles. Some of the Conservators are appointed, but others are elected directly by anyone on the electoral register who lives within a certain distance of the common land. The costs of looking after the land are borne by a precept upon those same voters. This system works well in aligning the interests of those people most likely to use the Commons with decisions on running it and paying its costs.

The Wimbledon example is far from unique: since 1877 the New Forest Verderers, a centuries-old body, has also been elected in this way.

The fundamental idea is that while voters may be turned off by general and local elections, they care deeply about individual issues which affect them. So, let’s give them a vote on the bodies who exercise those powers.

Who should vote in such elections?

Voting is traditionally conducted by geographical area. There is an assumption that voters’ interests are determined by common residence, be it a parish, a constituency or a region. This long-standing historical legacy doesn’t always match how people see themselves, especially in urban areas. A person might define themselves primarily by their age or profession, or according to their religion, or sexual orientation. Very few would say, for example, “I live in Streatham” as being an all-encompassing description of their outlook.

As a result, many stakeholders with a legitimate interest in the outcomes of local decisions are simply disenfranchised. By defining voters solely according to residence for electoral purposes, we are asking the wrong people their opinion.

The concept that each British voter should have one parliamentary vote, defined solely by their address, is a surprisingly recent innovation, dating from the Representation of the People Act 1948. Prior to that there were MPs for universities and many seats used to elect two MPs, especially prior to 1885.

Today’s City of London Corporation holds elections to its Court of Common Council, in which businesses have a vote, pro rata to the size of their workforce in the City. Since business voters on the Corporation’s electoral roll outnumber residential voters heavily, the Common Council naturally reflects business interests too. Businesses employ people and pay taxes, and often their interests might differ from those of residents.

Broadening the mix of voters might also help avoid such calamities as the  capture of the National Trust by a narrow band of interests.

We could apply these ideas to:

• National Parks Authorities: not only residents could vote, but anyone who runs a B&B, or owns a business within the Park. In the Lake District or the Norfolk Broads, boat owners should vote.
• Highways Agency directors. Imagine if motorists could vote! Perhaps there should be a hybrid franchise, with haulage companies, fleet operators and bus companies also having their say?
• Governors of the BBC, to be elected by licence fee payers. In future, should subscribers and advertisers be the electorate?
• Governors of the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority, perhaps elected by the businesses which they regulate.
• Governing bodies of universities, elected by students and graduates.

If Quangos can’t be abolished or replaced, let those whom they affect take control instead.

Government would become less remote. People care about the powers exercised in their name. But this will only happen if such a radical idea is taken up by our Party and rolled out fully. As Sir Humphrey said: “It takes two to Quango, Minister.”

The post Roger Bird: Expanding direct democracy – an alternative to quangocracy and Starmer’s bureaucratic state appeared first on Conservative Home.