Cog in the wheel. Bump on a log. Heard but not seen. Forgotten but not gone. I have heard all of these expressions before, Mr. Editor, and not just recently, used variously to describe the lot of backbench MPs in the House on the Hill. I may even have used them myself on occasion – out of frustration or anger or both, as a member of the Opposition and before that of Government.

The issue is not only how can we change but what can we change to make it otherwise.

Well, we can at least make a start, and recent moves within the ruling Progressive Labour Party looked to me like steps that could take them, and us, back to the future: or, if you prefer, forward from the past.

What caught my eye – and my attention – was the reported decision to widen the selection of candidates for election. The changes were apparently designed to give the branches greater say in who will represent them at election time by providing for mini-elections at branch levels.

It sounds a lot like primaries, which used to be a very strong feature of the selection process for the United Bermuda Party and can still be. I mention this, not to stir things up (although I may get accused of that – and more), but to offer some perspective.

Back in the day, within the United Bermuda Party, the real battlegrounds were the primaries when it came to safe seats. Would-be candidates and aspiring parliamentarians earned their spurs the hard way, by earning the coveted seal of approval from those who really do count: the registered voters who signed up as members of the party.

Yet there remain so many so-called safe seats on the political landscape, notwithstanding the move to single seats. Just look at the results of the last couple of elections: one of my colleagues figures it is ten for us, sixteen for them, and with any luck, the fight for power will rest with the remaining ten so-called marginals.

The party choice of candidate is always critical, but a method of selection that makes them more representative of the people they seek to serve, rather than of the party to which they belong, is to be preferred, in my book.

For instance, we could take a leaf out of the books of the Conservative Party in England. They have come up with some new and interesting ideas – mostly since they have been out of power, and I am fairly certain, from experience, that there's a strong connection between the two. The UK Conservatives experimented last summer with an "open primary". The sitting member announced that he would not be running at the next election. There were 100 aspirants for the job – it must be one of their safe seats – and the party whittled the number down to three, but then elected not to use the conventional method of selection of a constituency nominating meeting in which only card-carrying members of the party voted. They opted instead to give the vote to any registered voter who wanted to participate, party member or no. In a constituency of 65,000 registered voters, it was reported that about a quarter of them participated.

We don't as yet know whether this was a good or a bad risk – for the party. The general election has still to be held.

But the chosen candidate has already signalled an interesting result. The winner was a GP, Dr. Sarah Wollaston, who is already working the area (Totnes, for those who are wondering) and who has her own website up and running which makes no explicit, overt reference to the party she represents. Instead, readers will find this comment: "This (Britain's first-ever open primary) has given me a special mandate to represent all views and not just those of the Conservative Party. "

The shift in focus and in emphasis is inescapable. It is not surprising either that she takes this view. Dr. Wollaston is a member of a party which is promising in its platform that if elected the Government, its members will be given the freedom to vote as they see fit on legislation in the committee stage of the House – that is when bills are under clause by clause review. They believe this will improve legislative scrutiny. Could do. Incidentally, the Tories are also promising on-line scrutiny so the interested public can join in as well.

The wonder should be as to why we don't have more free votes in the House on the Hill here. To date they have been limited to conscience votes in which MPs are released from the whip to vote their conscience on contentious issues. The most recent was gaming onboard cruise ships in port – which failed. There were those in the PLP who voted against and what was essentially a Government Bill was lost. This was also a neat way of avoiding a Government defeat which can lead to resignations, of Ministers in the first instance, and the entire Government in some matters, particularly financial.

Gaming will apparently be coming up again this coming session – first in the form of a Green Paper. There is no vote required, just debate and discussion. It remains to be seen whether there will be any legislation and whether it will once again be subject to a free vote; that may well depend on how many say what in debate and discussion.

There is also a private member's bill down for debate: an amendment to the Court of Appeal Act to give the prosecution the same right of appeal as the defence in criminal cases. Arguably, it's another piece of legislation that all members should be free to vote on. It could start a healthy trend.

We'll see. Whips are not readily relaxed. But voters might find it a welcome change to not only hear their parliamentary representatives speak out freely on issues, but to vote freely as well.

I think the people would prefer, Mr. Editor, that their MPs were anything other than cogs in a wheel.

Comments, criticisms welcome. Write jbarritt@ibl.bm

QUOTE DU JOUR: "In all cases where government subsists, the legislature is the supreme power" – John Locke. Or should be: John Barritt.