Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Westminster

Left hand holds the purse strings

Feb 15

Posted by Kirsty in Democracy, Parties, Westminster | 6 Comments

Ed MilibandParty political funding is the reform behemoth that refuses to die.

Several times it’s been through the wringer of inquiry and report to being roundly ignored in the last decade –the 2000 Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, the 2006 Sir Hayden Phillips inquiry, and most recently Sir Christopher Kelly’s Committee on Standards in Public Life.

The proposed reforms to party funding never secure parliamentary support, as they fail to reach agreement from all three main Westminster Parties.  The Phillips inquiry collapsed over deciding the best way to deal with Labour’s funding from trade unions, while Sir Christopher Kelly’s proposal, of £23m a year in state funding of political parties, met with disapproval from all corners of Westminster, reluctant to commit to such spending of taxpayer’s money during a period of austerity.

Last week Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg called for a revival of the behemoth, writing to Ed Miliband and David Cameron asking them each to nominate party representatives for three-party private talks, aiming to set out some form of political funding agreement by Easter.

According to The Guardian, this agreement would “cover individual and company donor limits, the treatment of union affiliates, spending caps at elections and the distribution of existing state funding between parties, currently estimated at £7m a year.”

Additional state funding has been ruled out from these discussions, and this means the agreement will not include much reduced donation limits – such caps, minus funding from the state, could entail bankruptcy for the parties.

Much reduced donation limits from individuals or an organisation is the most frequent sticking point for the Labour Party in these discussions. Heavily dependent on trade union affiliation fees for income, any moves which limit or alter how these are made threatens Labour’s continued existence, whether it’s severely capping the amount a union can donate or proposing that political levy-payers have to contract in, rather than opt-out, when joining.

So while ruling out additional state funding and thus much lower donor limits means Miliband is likely to be more sympathetic to joining Clegg’s talks, another worry about party funding could be looming for Labour – this time from within.

A quarter of motions to the GMB’s annual conference in June are debating the trade union’s future relationship with Labour. The GMB describes the actions of so many of its branches raising this issue as “unprecedented”.

Giving around £2 million each year to the party, the GMB is Labour’s third largest donor. Of its 600,000 members, around half are either employed by the public sector, or in private companies contracted to the public sector. Comments by the Labour leadership in January regarding public sector pay constraint have ignited the union members’ ire; particularly Ed Balls’ statement in a speech to the Fabian Society that he could not promise to reverse the coalition’s spending cuts if Labour were elected in 2015.

In a statement on Tuesday, the GMB’s executive noted the concerns of its membership and said:

“The executive expressed concern and disappointment with recent statements made by senior party officials and registered their growing frustration at the lack of a cohesive policy to protect working people from the ravages of the Tory-led coalition Government.”

Being attacked by union activists while trying to woo middle-Britain back to Labour may not feel like being in ‘Red Ed’ Miliband’s best interests for positioning himself and his party to win the next election, but only a fool would dismiss these calls by the GMB’s activists.

Labour can’t try and defend the trade union link and its generous funding on one hand, while that crucial link and all its cash is slipping away from the other. Miliband is going to have to choose exactly how he wants his party to have a future; just have to wait and see if it will be a well funded one, with committed union activists campaigning on the ground, rather than skint attempts at triangulation with the Daily Mail reading masses.

UK = Titanic, sez Tory MP

Jan 26

Posted by Kirsty in Constitution, Westminster | 4 Comments

Speaking after the meeting of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee on Tuesday, David Davies MP (no, not that one) likened the future of the UK to the ill-fated Titanic, saying “It’s just a question of how long it takes to sink.”

I don’t tend nor like to give credence to the statements of politicians who claim £2,000 from taxpayers for a family business, or who thinks the torture of suspected Al Qaeda or Taliban terrorists is “a bonus”. It’s not even a very tasteful metaphor, when the news is still peppered with the ongoing search for missing souls in a maritime accident.

But on the day nominations close for the Plaid Cymru leadership, after Wyn Jones indicated he would stand down after disappointing 2011 election results, it’s pleasant to turn from Scotland to Wales, to see how devolution discussions are panning out there.

Davies’ comments are an interesting insight into the sheer irritation some Tories must have with a nation’s quest for devolution.

The Silk Commission was established in October 2011, to review both the fiscal and general powers of the Welsh Assembly. It will report on fiscal powers this autumn, looking mainly at whether the Senedd should take more responsibility for raising finance rather than from the block grant. It will then make recommendations on the Assembly’s other powers the year after.

In a similar sort of way to the commission on the West Lothian Question, it is the coalition’s preferred way to try to answer the issues developing around devolution, deriving from the original deal between Clegg and Cameron. Three members of the committee – chairman Paul Silk, Noel Lloyd and Dyfrig Jones – appeared before the Select Committee chaired by Davies this week.

And the Titanic jibe was not Davies’ only outburst. While chairing the Committee, Davies basically told Commission Chairman Paul Silk to get on with it:

“Could I suggest we could save £1m by you issuing a report now calling for lots of extra powers for the Welsh Assembly,” he said, because it “Is inevitably going to happen anyway.”

I doubt Davies’ ‘sod it’ attitude will sit well with the supposed unionist mantra of ‘stronger together’. It would be interesting to know how many of his fellow party members share the same view. At least it’s good to know the idea of more powers for Wales is an irritant to some on the government benches. After all, two stinging gadflies of nations pestering and positioning and petitioning for more powers are harder to ignore than one.

 

 

Screw you, Floella Benjamin

Jan 18

Posted by James in Westminster | 13 Comments

Late last night Twitter buzzed with the bad news that the Lords had rejected efforts to delay implementation of the Welfare Reform Bill, the austerity-led assault on the disabled being opposed by, amongst others, the fantastic #spartacusreport campaigners. For a detailed summary of what happened, both in terms of Ministerial speeches and the amendments, read Sue Marsh’s relatively optimistic report on it here.

The second thing Twitter buzzed with was word that Floella Benjamin had voted with her Lib Dem colleagues and against the disabled. Confirmation is here – disclose the Lib Dem section of those Not Content with the amendment to see the name Baroness Benjamin.

For some reason this particular voting decision stuck in my throat worst of all. Sure, it may be unfair to pick on her out of the 229 unelecteds who voted for this Tory agenda, but I grew up watching her on Playschool, and I feel personally aggrieved.

Floella – you were a ground-breaker, not just a rare and charming non-white face on our black and white TV but also the first woman shown properly pregnant on TV, apparently. You came across as such a kind and benevolent person, and yet last night you chose the Tory agenda over the needs of people with disabilities. Previously I might have looked at your twitter stream and thought it looked like the kind of anodyne and inoffensive stuff you might expect from a former childrens’ TV presenter, but today crap like this looks like a pretty sick joke.

The best childrens’ TV introduces kids to difference and helps them understand the diversity of society. I remember this including some fairly cack-handed efforts on the disability front (I do also remember that going horribly wrong in the early 1980s, admittedly) by Playschool and others. To discover that the lovely lady from the television helped to end DLA last night, and helped to push people with disabilities into poverty is just too much to tolerate. Tell me I’ve had a failure of perspective, but did the Dukes of Hazzard vote to hike up tuition fees? Did Ivor the Engine decide not to try and overturn his own privatisation? Did the Wombles do a u-turn on nuclear power? Did Dangermouse join the bloody Lib Dems?

The Question

Jan 18

Posted by Kirsty in Constitution, Westminster | 15 Comments

The members of the commission set up by the UK government into the West Lothian Question have been announced.

The commission will be chaired by former House of Commons clerk Sir William McKay and is made up of non-partisan experts with “constitutional, legal and parliamentary expertise”.

The rest of the panel are senior parliamentary lawyer Sir Stephen Laws, his predecessor Sir Geoffrey Bowman; the UK’s former ambassador to the UN, Sir Emyr Jones Parry, as well as two academics, Professor Charlie Jeffrey, the head of social and political science at Edinburgh University, and Professor Yvonne Galligan, a researcher in gender politics at Queen’s University Belfast.

Ever since the 1970s the West Lothian Question has plagued parliamentary relations between the nations of the UK. First posed by Tam Dalyell, then MP for West Lothian, it queried how a Scottish MP at Westminster post-devolution could vote upon policies affecting English seats, when that same MP could not vote on the same issue affecting his or her own constituency because it would have been devolved to a Scottish Parliament.

Today, the question more commonly challenges how Scottish MPs (and Welsh and Northern Irish members) continue to vote upon English matters while MPs from England have lost the power to influence the same policies, now devolved to the nations. There have been previous attempts to remedy the situation – notably reducing the number of Scottish MPs – but the discrepancy became particularly stark under the last Labour government, where Labour’s MPs from Scottish constituencies enabled the passing of controversial legislation for England like foundation hospitals and tuition fees.

The commission has been tasked, by the original coalition agreement drawn up between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, with recommending new ground rules for MPs on the Westminster Question. It will not cover financing, or the number of MPs: its purpose is rather to recommend a solution to the problem of who votes on parliamentary business covering England in Westminster that is under the auspices of the devolved assemblies elsewhere.

It seems unlikely that the commission will settle on all or nothing.

Burke’s dictum that “You choose a member, indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of Parliament” won’t soothe the sense of injustice after over a decade of Scottish MPs dictating domestic policy for England. Nor is Pete Wishart MP’s suggestion, speaking on the announcement of the commission members, that “There is only one clear answer to the West Lothian Question and that is for both Scotland and England to be fully in charge of their affairs by becoming independent and equal nations”, likely to gain the approval of the coalition government at the moment.

So with neither all MPs voting on everything, or no Scottish MPs at all being outcomes the commission is likely to reach, one possible solution is a ‘gentleman’s agreement’, whereby MPs from devolved nations refrain from voting on matters pertaining to England alone, as SNP MPs do at the moment. It was the aim of Conservative backbencher Harriet Baldwin’s Legislation (Territorial Extent) private member’s bill, which fell at its third reading last September, largely due to Ministers preferring the commission to be left to do its work.

I doubt MPs representing devolved constituencies will enjoy being relegated to not quite full Members of Parliament, meaning the restriction on voting will have to be made mandatory rather than voluntary. The archaic divisions in the House of Commons, coupled with the ways votes are called, could make implementing this a nightmare, although that indicates to me the need for more reform of the practices of parliament rather than an insurmountable obstacle in and of itself.

An alternative solution is federalism: an English chamber for discussing English issues. Sittings in Westminster Hall could change to focus on such legislation and only MPs from English constituencies would attend. It’s a reasonable option, soothing some of the issues West Lothian Question poses.

The Question of course only arises because of power moving closer to the people, or at least for people living in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Restricting what legislation certain MPs can vote on might resolve the Question in neat terms of day-to-day House of Commons life, but it does little to right the fundamental imbalance in power and influence which drove Dalyell’s original point.  Each nation’s representatives legislating on issues affecting that nation alone naturally brings more power and influence to all people in the UK. Whether the commission on the West Lothian Question will recommend this solution, at a time when most parties at Westminster oppose constitutional changes like independence for Scotland, will be interesting to see.

Muddy Waters

Jan 11

Posted by Kirsty in Health, Westminster | 15 Comments

There’s plenty going on this week which demonstrates the Coalition government should pay more heed to where Scotland is and what she thinks. Nonetheless, David Cameron’s proposal on minimum pricing for alcohol is undoubtedly inspired by Scotland’s lead.

Maybe you missed it in a boozy blur between Christmas and New Year, but David Cameron has instructed civil servants to pull together plans for minimum pricing for alcohol sales in England. According to The Daily Telegraph, this could either be the Scottish model, banning the sale of alcohol priced below 45 pence per unit, or as taxes based upon the number of units in a drink.

Whitehall’s strategy on alcohol will be published in February. The Scottish Government’s Bill is at Stage 1 at Holyrood, after being introduced by Nicola Sturgeon back in October. Labour at Holyrood don’t believe minimum unit pricing is the answer to Scotland’s alcohol issues as “it will not target problem drinks”. But might they be compelled from February onwards to take an opposing view to Labour at Westminster?

Despite introducing 24 hour drinking in England while in government, in early 2010 Andy Burnham, the then Health Secretary, indicated that Brown’s government were at least open to considering the introduction of minimum alcohol prices, saying:

“We need to balance the rights of people who drink responsibly with those who buy ludicrously cheap booze and go out and harm themselves and others… There is no shortage of research that shows the link with price and people drinking harmful levels of alcohol – there is no debate about that.”

Back then, Andrew Lansley, now Health Secretary, dismissed calls to set a minimum price for alcohol from both the Chief Medical Officer and the Commons Health Select Committee. Although the Coalition has banned supermarkets selling booze as a loss leader, and introduced higher duty on super-strength beer and cider, Lansley reportedly favours a voluntary approach on the part of the seller, indicating that Cameron has over-ruled him with the minimum price move.

A split between government ministers is always fun for oppositions. But with his previous comments, as well as many Labour-controlled councils within Greater Manchester and Merseyside considering the introduction of bylaws to set minimum alcohol prices, it won’t be so easy for Burnham to dismiss Cameron’s move for minimum pricing if it is included in proposals come February.

Of course, Burnham didn’t do anything when in power about minimum pricing, and his somewhat cool comment above could mean Labour will oppose any move by the coalition to introduce minimum pricing. But Burnham’s performance during Labour’s leadership elections in 2010 sees him regarded as a considerate centrist, while his recent campaign for the full disclosure of Hillsborough papers means he’s unafraid to grab emotive, powerful public issues. I would bet he won’t oppose minimum pricing just because Cameron wants it.

Meanwhile, Scottish Labour is gone too far on record opposing a minimum unit price to adapt to it developing from a Scottish to a UK debate. If Burnham backs Cameron’s measures, Jackie Baillie has to stand alone.

Labour in Holyrood’s not wrong in saying minimum pricing isn’t enough on its own to tackle Scotland’s demon drink problem. But I think they are mistaken to not back minimum pricing.

To survive Scottish Labour needs to develop an identity, both political and on policy, to distinguish itself from the Westminster party. But trying to do that on legislation that will save people’s lives should not be the place to start.