Reply to Daniel Kawczynski: Don’t worry, Daniel knows best

In 2008 Daniel Kawczynski apologised to the Spectator's Melanie Philips after accusing her of being "the most incompetent journalist in Britain". Yet after an equally ill thought out over reaction, this time in response to POWER2010's suggestion that Mr Kawczynski has failed British democracy he seems, still, to have failed to learn the right lessons.

Against all the odds, Mr Kawczynski's apology contained this pearl of wisdom - that we face "two responsibilities, one for readers - to ensure that they see past the headline to the origin of the information, and one for the author - to control what is written in such a way as to limit its misinterpretation."

Given POWER2010 kicked things off with its Guardian Ad let's start with our responsibilities as authors. Mr Kawczynski, we alleged 1) voted against transparency on MPs' financial interests, 2) leads opposition to reform of an unfair voting system, and 3), would prefer a House of Lords of appointed cronies and wealthy donors to an elected chamber.

Mr Kawczynski justifies his objections to greater transparency on second jobs with the argument that secrecy preserves the presence of experienced professionals in Parliament. Yet, when the whole country seems to agree that we need people of greater real-world experience in Parliament, the notion that communicating legitimate activities to constituents would in some way deter such MPs is laughable.

As Mr Kawczynski repeatedly states, MPs must account for themselves before their constituents - so why not disclose what other activities you're involved with Dan? Your constituents will hardly resent you if we discover you've been moonlighting as a nurse or a professor. And if they do? Well then as an MP so attuned to the concerns of your constituents I'm sure you'll understand and give it up.

As the nation's champion of our unfair voting system, sitting as chairman of the All Party Group for the Promotion of First Past the Post Group , we expected a more robust critique of a move to a more proportional system. Where is the accountability, Mr Kawczynski asks, in a multi member constituency? Well, when votes count and have to be fought for, accountability is enhanced.

The real question is where is the accountability in a safe seat? Where an MP enjoys a huge majority how can they be challenged and held to account? We've already seen, from research by blogger Mark Reckons, that MPs in safe seats abused the expenses system more gravely, a consequence, we can assume, of the arrogance and complacency encouraged by safe seat fiefdoms.

The second charge Mr Kawczynski levels against PR is that it might allow 2nd choice votes to count, and affect the outcome of an election. But that's exactly the point! People would finally be liberated from tactical voting, where I can spend a lifetime voting against one party or another without the chance ever to vote for someone I believe in.

House of Lords reform - again Mr Kawczynski laments a possible collapse in expertise, but if the recent Dispatches exposé is anything to go by where 10 of 20 Lords and Ladies contacted replied with interest to a job in lobbying it would seem the Upper Chamber is riddled by experts in self enrichment. Of course many figures there are decent and hard working - but calling for some kind of accountability is surely beyond contest. Indeed POWER2010's recent ICM polling found 65% of the public want an elected and accountable second chamber.

And what of Mr Kawczynski's own responsibility to write in such a way as to "limit misinterpretation"? His "Lib Dem allegations" barely worth mention, but for the fact that the Rowntree Trusts have been around for a century investing in thousands of different reforming initiatives from across the political spectrum.

Mr Kawczynski talks a great deal of the "real" concerns of his constituents in which case he of all people should appreciate the long and exhaustive process of public consultation and deliberation undertaken by POWER2010 to create the POWER Pledge against which we judge him as failing British democracy. A process where any individual could submit their idea to change politics, where a scientific sample of the population discussed those submitted and created a shortlist, and where 100,000 votes were cast to then select the people's top 5 priorities for reform.

Can one fail to "mis-interpret" the patronising tones of Mr Kawczynski's response? He suggests his constituents don't care about the unfairness of the electoral system and therefore neither should we. Yet as the Chairman of the All Party group for the promotion of First Past the Post one could be forgiven for thinking that Mr Kawczynski believes the electoral system is important! Perhaps then a second job Mr Kawczynski? Teaching on the supposed virtues of this unfair system? Perhaps our constitution that has "worked quite well" over many centuries - but still denies that the people are sovereign - can continue to do so and we can all get back to our busy little lives safe in the knowledge that MPs like Mr Kawczynski are there to do our thinking for us.