Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Westminster

Who does David Cameron want to win the Holyrood election?

Feb 22

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood, Westminster | 25 Comments

There is only one form of answer that David Cameron would realistically give to the question: ‘Who do you want to win the 2011 Holyrood election?’ and it would go something like this:

‘We are working very hard to make sure that Annabel Goldie has a strong bloc of Conservative MSPs in the Scottish Parliament, arguing in favour of the United Kingdom, arguing in favour of keeping household bills down, arguing for more police numbers and making sure some of the ballyhoo that we’ve seen over the past four years is not repeated’.

Well, ok, he’s not going to use a silly word like that. What does ‘bloc’ mean anyway?

For the viewers watching at home, they would unreasonably but understandably be hoping for a single answer – either ‘SNP’ or ‘Labour’.

Tavish, Annabel and Patrick are going to be asked this question of who they want to be the biggest party time and time again up to May 5th and they are well within their rights not to say either way.

They may well have formed a view and there is surely no doubt that the Prime Minister certainly has. So who does Dave want? Labour or SNP? Let’s look at the options shall we….

DavidCameron4SNP

Without wishing to invite the tired accusations of Tartan Tory, it is quite patently the case that Alex Salmond and David Cameron get on with each other rather well. The relationship between the two posts has certainly surely improved since Gordon Brown vacated Number 10, a period that included a whole year elapsing before the two leaders were in contact.

The calls made directly by Salmond to Cameron since the General Election include payment of the Fossil Fuel Levy, borrowing powers for the Scottish Parliament, a fuel duty regulator, capital acceleration for budget spending and Barnett consequentials from spending on the 2012 Olympics. There seems to be an implicit understanding of ‘some you win and some you lose’ around these demands, seemingly accepted with a hearty degree of respect on both sides, despite the attention-grabbing rhetoric delivered for the media headlines.

So there is a healthy, combative working relationship in place between current FM and PM but what of the thorny issue of independence? David Cameron claims to have the union jack stamped onto his insides like a stick of rock which surely rubs awkwardly against a First Minister whose main objective is to break up the United Kingdom?

Well, so far it doesn’t seem to be a problem. David Cameron is somewhat ‘above the fray’ in terms of constitutional affairs, leaving such issues to the Liberal Democrat body armour that he fashioned around his party. Alex Salmond’s main aim is to ensure the voting Scottish public is, at some point (and preferably on the day of any referendum), in favour of Scottish independence to the tune of 50.01% of turnout. That Scotland-focussed aim doesn’t really affect Cameron and his Scottish Conservative MPs. Sorry, MP. Consequently, there is no head-on collision between the two leaders. Two polar opposite views are not crossing paths and, so, not causing problems.

I would wager that the highly unlikely prospect of Cornish independence causes more headaches for David Cameron than Scottish independence does as there are more seats in the South West of the UK that the Conservatives can realistically win in 2015 than there are in the whole of Scotland.

I honestly believe there would be no hidden grimace nor silent grinding of teeth if the Prime Minister had to phone up Alex Salmond and congratulate him on a second term on May 7th.

DavidCameron4Labour

When Scottish Labour shared power at Holyrood with the Lib Dems from 1999 to 2007 there was very little discord with the, admittedly Labour, UK Government.

The Conservatives may, quite reasonably, be concerned at the prospect of being attacked by their main opposition rivals from two angles and balk at the prospect of Ed Miliband and Iain Gray being able to coordinate policy and party message with the not inconsiderable Westminster and Holyrood resources that they would have available to them.

That said, Ed Miliband has endured a timid (if not quite torrid) start to this tenure as Labour leader. Ed hit the ground sauntering and, on current evidence, there is a very high likelihood that Iain Gray would hit the ground dawdling given the lack of policy he has ready to implement and the apparent power struggle at the top of his party. David Cameron would arguably welcome having leaders that are perceived as anonymous by the Great British public across the Chamber in Westminster and at the helm in Holyrood.

In terms of policy, and independence to one side, there is probably little to choose between Labour and the SNP with regard to direct impact on the UK coalition. Both parties will complain that spending is being cut too sharply and that changes to health and education south of the border have a significant impact on Scotland as a nation that does not have the public appetite to turn GPs into accountants, quasi-privatise the NHS and charge students the earth just to go to university.

Indeed, the main concern for David Cameron in terms of the Scottish Parliament election result is what the irascible Liberal Democrats will do next. A formal coalition with the SNP or Labour in Scotland while there is a formal coalition with the Conservatives in London is surely a nightmare scenario for the Prime Minister. A tantalising thought for those of us who believe the Lib Dems sold out but surely an unworkable situation in the medium to long term nonetheless.

How the Liberal Democrats can continue to operate as a single entity while implementing contradictory policies either side of the border is beyond me. And how the coalition can continue if the Liberal Democrats were to finally sink under the weight of its own impossibly duplicitous political dexterity is anyone’s guess.
For those reasons, of which Clegg and Cameron are surely acutely aware, it is surely not possible for a Holyrood coalition to work from 2011 in any conceivable way. The Conservatives will continue to be rebuffed, the Greens will continue to be too small in number and the Lib Dems as coalition partners will quite simply be too problematic a consideration for their London leaders’ tastes.

May 2011 will see a single winner, a minority Government under one single party’s control and David Cameron must have a preference in mind. Broadly speaking, one has to think that the Prime Minister has not had too many sleepless nights over the fact that a Nationalist is currently the First Minister of Scotland and perhaps, just perhaps, David is thinking that it is a case of ‘better the Nationalist you know rather than the Unionist you don’t’.

Change the record

Feb 17

Posted by Malc in Governance, Media, Westminster | 14 Comments

I get pretty fed up of listening to opposition to governments – of whatever hue – moanin’ about policy A, greetin’ about policy B and whinin’ about policy C, only for when the government decides to listen to the will of the public on each of the policies, for them then to claim “embarrassing climbdown” or “U-turn” at every opportunity.

For goodness sake, this is the outcome you wanted!

Look, I get there’s a political agenda, I really do.  And I get that people hate the government, and will take any opportunity to kick them.  But can’t we be a little bit more graceful in how we do it?  Have we forgotten entirely the manners taught to us when we were young?  I’m sure I remember something about being polite when asking for something, and then when it was given to me I was supposed to say “thank you”.  Yeah, that sounds familiar.  So why does politics exist outwith the boundaries of these well-mannered social conventions?

Well, first thought is the depth of feeling.  You really despise party A (the governing party) so asking them for anything is a challenge in itself.  They’ve been a rival for such a long time that you can’t really remember a time that you liked them or worked together to achieve something.  But this is really a repeat of your childhood.  “Mum – brother/sister won’t let me have X”… “Ask them nicely – make sure you say please”.  Sound familiar?  I remember fighting with my wee brother (a lot) and even when we were forced to be polite, we still didn’t like it.  So that could be part of it.  But doesn’t there come a point when you stop being so immature?  You stop despising each other and learn to work together.  At least, that’s how I remember it.

Secondly, what about the idea that politics itself is essentially a zero-sum game – if they are doing well, you are doing badly and you want them to do badly so you can do well.  So if you ask them for something and they say yes, you want to treat it as you doing well and them doing badly, not both of you working together to improve the situation for everyone.  That’s logical because (coalition situations excepted) only one of you can govern at any one time, and you want it to be you so you make your party look better than the party in government.

But what partisan politics oftentimes forgets is that governing is not actually a competition.  Its about setting and collecting taxes and spending that money in a variety of ways in order to best serve the public.  Now you may have ideas as to how better do this than the other party, and you may want the public to know how much better your ideas are than the government’s so that next time they have the opportunity to vote they will remember your ideas and vote for you instead of the government.  But sometimes, when you have an idea that you think the government should pursue, and they do in fact pursue it, changing their own position in the process, it should be celebrated as good for the country, not good for the party.

Of course this post is inspired by the debate over plans to sell off state-owned forestry land in England.  But it is more inspired by the media reaction which calls the government’s change of heart on the issue “an instant, screeching u-turn“.  Because, as with most things in politics, you can’t do something without the media.  Media shapes the debate and how particular issues are viewed depends very much how they are reported.  So for the opposition to the government plans, while in reality this was a victory for them, they – and the media – have to spin it as a defeat for the government in order for it to be worthy of top news-billing.

So once again my naive hope that politics can be conducted in a more positive and civilised manner is likely to be thwarted because we can’t handle a situation where government and opposition can work together without one party having to outscore the other. Yawn.  And we wonder why people are turned off politics.

Davis and Straw versus ECHR (2011)

Feb 10

Posted by Malc in Constitution, Democracy, Europe, Westminster | 82 Comments

Westminster is getting its collective knickers in a knot today over the issue of prisoner voting rights.

On the one side we have the European Court of Human Rights which suggests (nae, demands!) that the UK comply with their view that denying prisoners a vote in UK elections – at all levels – represents a breach of their human rights.  Failure to comply will result in… well, I’m not sure, to be honest.  Apparently the prisoners can sue for compensation, though how you put a monetary value on the freedom to vote I don’t know.

Anyway, on the other side we have Tory MP David Davies leading the charge, ably supported by former Home Secretary Jack Straw, arguing that when prisoners break their contract with society by committing a crime and are subsequently incarcerated, they give up their right to vote for the duration of their stay at Her Majesty’s pleasure.  Further, they argue, that while prisoners are of course covered by the Convention on Human Rights, that only extends as far as being fed and treated with respect – it does not extend to their ability to determine the government of the day.  Finally, neither seems to think the UK Government should be held to ransom by the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that “democratically elected lawmakers” of a sovereign state should have more say over their electoral arrangements than unelected judges and law-interpreters.

The upshot of it, as far as I can gather, is that we have a motion in parliament on the issue, and that both government and opposition front benches have been instructed to abstain in the vote while backbenchers have a free vote, though the vote itself is non-binding on the government.  David Cameron and the Conservative element of the government have signalled their displeasure with the European Court’s decision, though suggest that the UK has no choice but to comply, while the Liberal Democrats are likely to be (though I haven’t seen this in print) more sympathetic to prisoners’ claims.

Wherever you stand on the issue of prisoner voting rights (and though I tend to be more of a “rehabilitation-ist” than a “punish-punish-punish” type, I agree with the PM – it makes me a little ill to think that a prisoner who has no respect for the rights of others when s/he murders/rapes/assaults/burgles another citizen should be allowed to vote) this case opens up a lot of constitutional questions which the UK and the European Union are not prepared for.

In particular, can the UK continue to defy the European Court of Human Rights?  If so, what are the sanctions for such defiance?  When the UK signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights did it cede so much sovereignty that it no longer has control over its own franchise?  What are the ramifications for UK Parliamentary democracy if it has to take direction from Europe on law and order?

Needless to say, I’m just asking the questions – I don’t have all (or indeed, any) of the answers.  Perhaps some of our legal-minded colleagues may shed some light?  Either way, I watch this process unfold and await the outcome with some interest.

Referring to the People

Jan 24

Posted by Malc in Constitution, Democracy, Westminster | 32 Comments

In China we are currently in the Year of the Dragon (EDIT – actually, it is the Year of the Tiger) until February at least, when it becomes the Year of the Rabbit which is (no longer) appropriate, since I’m going to talk about Wales, whose symbol is Y Ddraig Goch (It was a good idea when it worked – honest).  But in Wales, this year will not be the year of the dragon, tiger or the rabbit: it will be, in pure geekery terms, the Year of the Referendum(s).

Alongside the excitement that is the AV Referendum(!), the Welsh public will also get the opportunity to vote in a referendum to extend the powers of the National Assembly for Wales.  Or rather, they will get a chance to vote to confirm the extension of powers of the NAfW, since those powers were already granted to the Assembly, but only through a system whereby they had to ask for each power individually, and the granting of all primary legislative powers in one go had to be verified by referendum as stipulated in the Government of Wales Act 2006… you know what, it is fairly complex – if you are incredibly interested, in the process, have a read of the Electoral Commission stuff on it.  Or ask someone from Wales, who may or may not be able to help you.

Anyway, so in Wales they have two referendums in a little over two months, while the rest of us have one in May.  Which brings me to my point – in a representative democracy, when we give over our right to make decisions by electing someone to make them for us, why have referendums in the first place?

Apparently, I wasn’t the only one asking this.  The House of Lords convened a Select Committee on the Constitution to investigate “the role of referendums in the UK’s constitutional experience” and produced a report (12th Report of Session 2009-10 entitled “Referendums in the UK”, pdf here).  In it, they listed the 9 large-scale referendums constituting the “modern history of referendums in the UK”:

1973 – NI Sovereignty
1975 – EEC Membership
1979 – Scottish devolution
1979 – Welsh devolution
1997 – Scottish devolution
1997 – Welsh devolution
1998 – Devolution for London
1998 – Good Friday Agreement
2004 – North-East Devolution

As you can see from the list above, prior to Labour winning power in 1997, there had been only 4 referendums, while the subject of each referendum (with the exception of the Good-Friday Agreement, though you can make a case for it as well) is related to the constitutional future of the UK or a component part thereof.

The House of Lords Select Committee weighed the evidence for and against referendums:

For:

  • Enhances the democratic process
  • Difficult to reverse if public support
  • Can “settle” an issue
  • Can be a “protective device” (safeguard against controversy)
  • Promotes voter education
  • Enhances citizen engagement
  • Popular with voters
  • Complements representative democracy

Against:

  • It is a “tactical device”
  • Dominated by elite groups
  • Have a damaging effect on minority groups
  • It is a “conservative device” (block on progress)
  • Do not “settle” an issue
  • Over-simplify issues
  • Tend not to be about issue in question
  • Costly
  • Undermine representative democracy

Given the balance of evidence the Committee took from experts in the field, academics, constitutional lawyers from across the world and experienced referendum actors, they concluded that there are “significant drawbacks to the use of referendums” and particularly regrettable was “the ad hoc manner in which referendums have been used, often as a tactical device, by the government of the day.”

However, they relented slightly by stating that “if referendums are to be used, they are most appropriately used in relation to fundamental constitutional issues”.  They provided several examples, two of which are relevant to this post: a referendum to change the electoral system for the House of Commons and “for any of the nations of the UK to secede from the Union”.

So, we’re having one of those (the changing the electoral system one, in case you’ve missed it) but we’ve been denied the latter by a) unionist parties not letting the Scottish Government have a referendum or b) the SNP being too scared to bring forward their bill (depending what side of the fence you are sitting on).  In Wales, they’ll have a referendum (which was part of the amendment to devolution that was the Government of Wales Act 2006) in order to amend devolution further (and I’ll probably write more about that nearer the time) so that fits with the using referendums in relation to “fundamental constitutional issues” idea.

I guess my point is this.  A committee of one of the Houses of Parliament at Westminster has indicated its preference for holding a referendum in cases where a constituent nation is considering secession.  Thus, while not legally watertight or providing the Scottish Parliament with the competence to legislate in this area, I think it indicates that, should a Scottish Government pass a bill at Holyrood calling for a referendum on secession from the union, the UK Parliament may have given itself a problem in denying such a plebiscite.  Though the report itself was only advisory, and conducted under the previous government, so perhaps not.  For constitutional geeks like me (and, if you have gotten this far in the post, probably you too) the report is worth a read.

DM4TV – How much spare time does an MP have?

Jan 12

Posted by Jeff in Westminster | 13 Comments

It wasn’t so long ago that George Foulkes was arguing vociferously for politicians to receive significant increases in pay. We were in the eye of the expenses storm and the suggestion, as I understood it, was that an MP’s base salary was so low in relation to their heavy workload that it was understandable, if not necessarily excusable, for politicians to seek extra remuneration elsewhere.

At the time I found it to be a convincing argument; if we do expect the life of an MP to be a frenetic, round-the-clock, 24/7 affair, then that should be reflected in some way, reflected perhaps even through increasing the £60k or so salary that the current crop of MPs currently enjoy.

Given this pleading to give overworked politicians a break, I must admit that I was struck with surprise when I learned that David Miliband was looking to carve out a career for himself on TV, over and above his commitments as a constituency MP.
That ambition from the former Foreign Secretary has now swerved towards (and seemingly settled upon) volunteering as a teacher for 12 hours/week in a Chalk Farm school, a school some 300 miles away from his constituency.

Now, putting aside the selflessness of this decision (not to mention the flightiness of it that is more becoming of a student picking an outside college course) how can an MP for the far flung constituency of South Shields take almost two working days off in the week from his main job?

Don’t get me wrong, it’s for those South Shielders to decide how acceptable this is and I have little doubt that they’d return David Miliband with a stonking majority at any opportunity they had between now and the next election, and no doubt beyond.

It does beg the question though of just how busy our MPs actually are. And, specifically, how busy are our Scottish MPs who do not have to overly concern themselves with education, health and crime issues that their English and, to a lesser extent, Welsh counterparts do, including David Miliband of course.

I have no problem with MP salaries rising in order to attract and attain the brightest and the best and I have no problem with politicians being cut some slack if they have to work morning, day and night to fulfil modern expectations of what an MP should do and be.

However, I do have a problem with MPs acting outside the job description and taking up part-time roles outside their democratic remit. If you want to be a tv star or a teacher then step aside and let someone else in to do the job that you were elected to do less than a year ago.

Perhaps David Miliband can be something of a guinea pig to these ends with his looming circuitous career that will keep him off the backbenches for the next four years. Who knows, it may prove to be a rip-roaring success for reasons that I cannot currently see. However, I can’t help but be a little less in favour of those politician pay rises that Lord Foulkes was advocating recently…

UPDATE – David’s latest career plan is to join the board of Sunderland