GORDON Brown wants cross-party support for his proposals to reform Westminster and restore the battered reputation of politicians.
But there was little sign of it in the Commons yesterday. After the Prime Minister had outlined his plans – which include a new statutory code of conduct for MPs and a review of the voting system – David Cameron's immediate response was to repeat his
familiar call for a general election.
And the Tory leader went on to accuse Mr Brown of a "distraction strategy".
It remains to be seen how the various elements of the reform package will be taken forward.
But some of the proposals – such as a new parliamentary standards authority to oversee expenses and the register of MPs' interests; and a crackdown on misconduct in the House of Lords – do look like a serious attempt to win back public trust.
Other ideas floated in Mr Brown's statement, like reducing the voting age and possible moves towards a written constitution, had less obvious connection with the expenses scandal.
And his promise of proposals before the summer on a mostly-elected Second Chamber reinforced a feeling that it is getting rather late in the day for the Government to be bringing forward major constitutional changes.
Despite his claim about a "distraction strategy", Mr Cameron had a few ideas of his own to air a couple of weeks ago about how Westminster should reform itself, including fixed-term parliaments, more free votes and a cut in the number of MPs.
These don't seem to have much to do with tackling greed among politicians either, although they could find favour with voters.
But Mr Cameron and his colleagues are less keen on another reform which would probably find widespread public support – a ban on MPs having second jobs.
One Labour backbencher urged the Prime Minister yesterday to stop "moonlighting" by politicians, arguing that MPs are paid a full-time salary for a full-time job and had a duty to their constituents to devote all their attention to the task.
And there is still the big unresolved issue about rules on party funding.
The political parties will do themselves and the public a service if they can agree sensible reforms on expenses and conduct to prevent any repeat of the abuses which have been exposed over the past month.
But other possible changes – not least electoral reform – need time for proper public debate and should not be rushed through as part of a panic response to the expenses saga.
The Tories have made clear they do not want a change from the current voting system. Mr Cameron argues proportional representation could open the door to the BNP, as it did at last week's European Parliament elections.
But the Prime Minister says he does not support PR and points out the "Alternative Vote" system, which the Government appears to favour, would not be any help to the BNP.
The AV system asks voters to rank candidates in order of preference – 1, 2, 3, etc – and then redistributes votes until one candidate has over 50 per cent.
A variation, known as AV-plus, adds a small number of "top-up" places to give greater balance between the parties, not unlike the Scottish Parliament's system of constituency first-past-the-post elections and regional top-up lists.
In fact, quite a lot of the reforms the Westminster politicians are now considering are similar to the way Holyrood works – a stricter expenses system, a code of conduct, a fixed term parliament, and a smaller number of politicians. Mr Cameron says he wants outsiders to stand as candidates to bring fresh blood into Westminster, just as there was a lot of talk in the run-up to the creation of the Scottish Parliament about people from beyond politics getting elected as MSPs to contribute a new perspective.
Some have even suggested MPs should no longer call each other "my honourable" and Commons officials should ditch their ceremonial garb – peculiar habits never adopted here.
The Scottish Parliament had a cross-party consultative steering group working out detailed plans of how the parliament would function. Westminster evolved over centuries. It is no wonder some of its ways are quaint and antiquated.
The Scottish Parliament's expenses system has already been cited by several senior UK politicians as a model for the Commons to follow.
If they now decide to copy other features, it will begin to look as if they want to turn Westminster into Holyrood-on-Thames.
