hat do any of us want from our government? We want it to act in the way that it said it would at the election. We want it to avoid scandal, and we want it to listen to us. We have to trust them to do the job, because that is what they are paid for. They have the knowledge, the information, and the powers at their fingertips. We do not.

Why do I make this distinction between 'us' and 'them'? Probably because it sadly exists. Politicians are too far from reach. We need to bring them down with a bump to our level. We must remind them that they are there to do a job, on our behalf, for our good, and only because we asked them to.

I can highlight the current level of unaccountable government by telling a hypothetical story. A fascist party in the near future is elected to Westminster because of manifold economic problems and social stresses caused as a result. They implement extremely radical and right-wing policies. Reasonable people see what they are, but it is too late. One slip by the electorate at a bad time has condemned the country to autocracy. Why? Well - there is no Bill of Rights, or written constitution, so they are not actually breaking any rules. The judiciary is politically appointed, so it is not independent enough to act. The Queen, as Head of State, may try, but this will only create a constitutional paradox, and destroy the monarchy. The House of Lords cannot overrule the Commons, because it is unelected. Finally, the Opposition cannot act directly because it is a minority. Only if it can recruit enough government defectors does it stand a chance. Local government is equally impotent to stop the Executive. You see, an elected government is not just the Executive; it is also the effective Legislature, and through other influences - almost everything else in government too. It is, in short, the State.

The current government is nobly attempting to rectify this untenable position. It has held referendums in both Scotland and Wales on devolution - and has succeeded in getting their support, albeit narrowly in Wales. This was largely due to a confusion between national self-government and local democracy, two fundamentally different things, the former of which was never on offer. The government will, over the course of this Parliament (it it chooses to, of course) implement: a minor reform to the House of Lords (removing hereditary peers); a change to the electoral system for European elections; and a possible referendum for London on an elected Mayor and assembly (unfortunately appointed) for the city.

However, there are big problems ahead here. Britain has never been quick to embrace change and the future (despite Tony Blair's conference speech to the contrary). This is obviously why Labour is going slowly on democratic reform, when it is so vital. People say: "this reform is low priority, what about the NHS, unemployment, etc.". They are right, in a sense. These issues are important, certainly, but if we do not make democratic reforms now, then when will we? Furthermore, an increase in local democracy could probably help to lower unemployment anyway (see Will Hutton, 'The State To Come'). It is already nearly the end of the 20th century. Now is the time. We must enter the new millennium with a fresh democracy that will last. Some say that our democracy has evolved over centuries. That's rubbish. Our democracy is a hotch-potch which was cobbled together in smoke-filled rooms whenever it was politically expedient to do so, and never properly.

One main problem with these reforms is that on a regional level, they are a mess. Scotland gets a proper Parliament, with law-making and tax-varying powers. Good. But Wales only gets a talking shop, London only an appointed assembly, and the regions are not even being discussed yet. This is an incredibly disorganised, unequal, unjust mess. If it is allowed to proceed, it may well collapse in shambles, and