THE Podium by Bill Angus (December 6, 'Adversarial mindset is bad for democracy') highlighted everything that is wrong with our current House of Commons, things that I and probably most of the country would agree with, except maybe our politicians.

Apart from Proportional Representation there were no real solutions put forward, but I have a list of very controversial options.

1. Halve the number of Parliamentary seats.

2. Set the boundaries for each seat without reproach, based on equal population statistics. Large tracts of land would then need to incorporate a city to make up the numbers.

3. Only allow future boundary adjustments when these statistics change.

4. Select candidates on their value to the community, not based on their schooling, their family background or their degree in politics. We need people of mixed abilities and diverse experience in all aspects of life.

5. At polls, it will be the candidate with the highest number of votes who will sit on the government benches and will select policies. These members will then be from many different political parties with differing viewpoints, forming a truly democratic government.

6. The person in second place at polls will sit on the opposite bench, to assemble a reforming opposition, not an adversarial crowd, again made up of many parties with contrasting views. This way, each seat at the polls will be of worth and good candidates not be rejected or hijacked.

7. Give the ancient job of Whips their redundancy papers.

8. With a reforming opposition in the Commons there would be no requirement for a second House so our bishops, hereditary peers, retired politicians and party sponsors could be retired (without compensation). This will save huge amounts of money, which we cannot afford.

So how will it work?

Without a one-party system of government our democratically elected members would actually have to talk to one another to agree policies acceptable to all, not dictated by the few. They would be independent thinkers without being harangued by Whips.

The bench opposite would act as a reforming unit to highlight errors, omissions and unlawful suggestions, to be acted upon by consensus.

Voting for policies would carry equal weight for each member of the House, on both sides. They would vote secretly, anonymously and electronically to allow independence of thought.

A majority of, say, 65 per cent would be required to pass a policy into law, or debate and amend it again until a majority agree. This would be a fairer process and ensure that all members of our society are represented equitably in new laws.

Of course, there would be much opposition and many who will disagree tooth and nails with these proposals. But how else are we going to get people voting again if they have totally lost confidence in the present system?

The other option is revolution, but I would not condone that, even as a last resort.

I do believe in our democracy but not the way that the system has been shamefully abused over the years. Bring back the old-style politicians, men like Nye Bevan who went out into the people and listened!

Roy Wilcock