We sometimes hear of the ‘democratic deficit’ with reference to the European Union – and how the EU is insufficiently accountable to the voters within the 27 states. Indeed, in the UK, the only chance we get to make an EU-vote is every five years for our MEPs, and even that result is usually based on national rather than European factors.
Increasing democracy would be a revolution to the European Union, and may even improve its image within this country, so here are three suggestions to make a start.
The European President
This is an item I originally blogged about in September 2009, when such people as Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern were being suggested in the new post of President of the European Council. This position fell to Herman Van Rompuy, now in his second term of office.
My argument is, when this term expires, in November 2014, it should be the voters who decide the President. This was a missed opportunity to bring the European Union closer to the people but should not be missed again. Candidates, including Mr Van Rompuy and Mr Blair if they wish, can campaign in all 27 countries – we will get to know them and their views, ask questions, just like any other election campaign, and then vote using either STV or the Supplementary Vote system. The winner will not be someone we have never heard of who has emerged from nowhere.
When I have put this argument before, people have said ‘ah, but everyone will vote for their countryman, and the Germans will always win.’ Well, I am not convinced that everyone in the UK will vote for Tony Blair, or every German for Angela Merkel.
Whatever the details, some sort of election is better than an ‘appointment’ of arguably one of the most powerful men in Europe.
The Commission
The UK has one Commissioner on the European Commission, essentially the executive body of the EU. Traditionally this post has been seen as a consolation prize for failure in UK politics – hence previous holders have included Peter Mandelson, Neil Kinnock, Chris Patten and Leon Brittan.
These too could be elected by each individual state. We could have a national debate about which person would best represent us. Unfortunately, party politics being what it is, each party will probably have only one candidate and the winner will always be a Tory or Labour person – but again this is better than a system by appointment, and at least we could all name our Commissioner.
Members of the European Parliament
Each state had to select a system of PR to elect their MEPs - and the UK chose the party list system. This is the system whereby you get a huge ballot paper with lists of candidates, and you choose the ‘party’ (NB: NOT the individual), which, at the end of the day, gives you a group of MEPs of various parties. This gives enormous powers to the parties as it is they who choose the order of their respective list.
My proposal is to exchange this to the Single Transferable Vote – STV – a system which allows you to choose the individual to represent you, not the party. So instead of one X, you can give thought to placing 1-2-3 and so on, candidates of the same party will be competing against each other, individuals from different parties can be chosen, and this gives the voter complete control and flexibility.
Of course, Liberal Democrats don’t need lectures about fair voting systems – but, apart from Scotland, STV is unfamiliar to the people and an information campaign would be required. Once people have got the hang of it, it may then be possible to bring it into local council elections in England and Wales.
Using these techniques, the British voter will be able to select the individuals to serve as President, Commissioner, and their MEPs within the European Union. Other countries can do likewise. And the result will be a President, a Commission and a Parliament completely democratically chosen and regularly accountable to the voters, and people with a greater say and familiarity in the European Union's affairs.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Some thoughts for Europe
The European Union is a subject which excites politicians
and commentators more than it does voters. While the Conservative party
regularly has civil wars on the issue, and UKIP enjoys growing support, I have
found the issue is very rarely raised on the doorstep, and it is a fact that turnout at European
elections is often very low and results depend on national factors
rather than European policy.
However this is not to say that the topic is anything but important. The EU’s fortunes are a vital part of our nation’s fate – our biggest trading partner and creator of many of our laws. Depending on your point of view, the EU is an essential trading block in a growing inter-dependent world or a German plot to subsume Britain into a European superstate.
There are things on which Europhiles and Eurosceptics agree. The EU is vast, inefficiently administered and over-bureaucratic. Having a parliament building in Strasbourg, with regular movement of staff and resources, is an unnecessary waste and expense. The EU is in dire need of cost-cutting reform. And, in my view, this is how we should be using British muscle – in mobilising those of like minds throughout the EU to this point of view.
When I put this view, I am often told, usually by sceptics, that there is no point. The EU will never change – it is on a non-stop course to full political integration because that is what the Europeans want, and are not interested in alternate views.
They are partly correct in that British views are often disregarded – but that could be due to the fact that successive governments have constantly taken a distant or cooling approach to the EU. We always go along, never take the first step. We opt out of things, maybe even veto or delay, but generally drift along with an air of disinterest. Have you heard of the UK government taking an act of initiative within EU corridors?
Sharon Bowles, Lib Dem MEP, and doing an excellent job as Chair of the Economic and Monetary Committee, once said that others had sought to remove her from this position – not because of her views or talents – but simply because she was British. Our businessmen in Europe may find a similar problem – the general assumption that Britain is a lame duck which will one day go off into isolation. Equally a company thinking of moving to the UK (and creating jobs!) has to have this prospect at the back of their mind. This is something David Cameron and the Tory media never think of – how their hostility to the EU has a knock-on effect on our influence.
So should we leave the EU? As I said, the EU is far from perfect – would our withdrawal improve it? Would our retreat from our major trading partners during a recession help our own economy? Are world powers more likely to invest in the UK if we have detached ourselves from this trading bloc? Could the UK, on its own, profit in a world of growing economies such as NAFTA and the BRIC nations? Is the EU really a German-led plot to succeed where the Wehrmacht failed and that all the other nations are conspirators along for the journey? If the EU is so evil, why is there a queue of nations wanting to join and, apart from the UK, barely a whisper from anyone about leaving?
Having said that, I would favour an in-out referendum as argued in an earlier entry. Our progress and contribution in the European project is being held back by the internal threat posed to our economic security from the Eurosceptics – so once the referendum is won (which I believe it can be) the anti-EUs will be neutralised and then we can all campaign for the type of EU we want to see.
Another expression we often hear – particularly in Conservative circles – is ‘repatriation of powers’. This is the view that the EU have taken away many powers that national states used to exert and that the state should have them back. This is a good phrase but of course deliberately vague. There have been cases, for example, where European laws have trumped UK ones – for example, the EU have often forced workers’ rights onto reluctant UK governments of both colours. It was not a UK government who granted measures of flexible working or paternity leave. By definition, ‘repatriation of powers’ is a backward step, when we should be looking forwards.
The biggest issue in Europe today, both in and out of the EU, is the Euro crisis. Again the UK, a major player on the continent, and with one of the world’s biggest economic centres of power and expertise in the City, could make a contribution to the issue. It is in our interests, after all, for a stable and prosperous Euro. However, the government have put us on the outside of the debate, with a glass on the wall listening to what others are discussing. I was particularly alarmed by David Cameron’s suggestion of the EU having two budgets – one for the 17 countries in the Eurozone and one of the 10 outside, which would move the EU into internal conflict and possibly permanent separation – at a time when all 27 should be drawing together.
We need the UK to engage positively with our EU partners, to throw our weight into solving the Euro crisis, to continue to co-operate and work together on cross-border problems such as the environment, terrorism, illegal immigration and organised crime. And to fight for the type of European Union we want to see – a streamlined organisation developing a completely free trade zone for mutual economic security and prosperity.
This is a clear issue on which we in the Liberal Democrats disagree with our national coalition partners. Where they stand on the cliffs of Dover and stick two fingers up in a south east direction, we instead stretch out our right arm to grab a hand. Where the Tories say ‘give us back our powers’, we say ‘let us all be powerful together’.
We are the most pro-European major political party – I think that is a fact we should trumpet out loud. We will be called traitors and quislings by the media, but I have found that people generally accept the importance of the European Union and the need for us to be involved – especially during difficult economic times. In terms of businesses, large and small, and jobs, continued and growing interdependence is vital.
It will not be long before we are campaigning for the 2014 European parliament elections. At the last elections in 2009, UKIP did well, mainly because the vote took place during the expenses scandal when perceptions of the three parties were very low. This time, unless there is another scandal, we should see the established parties regain some ground.
The Labour party will continue to campaign on their policy of having no policies. The Conservatives will try to be pro- and anti-European at the same time. UKIP will be, well, UKIP.
I hope the Liberal Democrats fly the flag high for Europe. Fight the elections on European issues. And continue to send a growing and talented band of MEPs to fight for our country’s interests. After all, someone has to!!
However this is not to say that the topic is anything but important. The EU’s fortunes are a vital part of our nation’s fate – our biggest trading partner and creator of many of our laws. Depending on your point of view, the EU is an essential trading block in a growing inter-dependent world or a German plot to subsume Britain into a European superstate.
There are things on which Europhiles and Eurosceptics agree. The EU is vast, inefficiently administered and over-bureaucratic. Having a parliament building in Strasbourg, with regular movement of staff and resources, is an unnecessary waste and expense. The EU is in dire need of cost-cutting reform. And, in my view, this is how we should be using British muscle – in mobilising those of like minds throughout the EU to this point of view.
When I put this view, I am often told, usually by sceptics, that there is no point. The EU will never change – it is on a non-stop course to full political integration because that is what the Europeans want, and are not interested in alternate views.
They are partly correct in that British views are often disregarded – but that could be due to the fact that successive governments have constantly taken a distant or cooling approach to the EU. We always go along, never take the first step. We opt out of things, maybe even veto or delay, but generally drift along with an air of disinterest. Have you heard of the UK government taking an act of initiative within EU corridors?
Sharon Bowles, Lib Dem MEP, and doing an excellent job as Chair of the Economic and Monetary Committee, once said that others had sought to remove her from this position – not because of her views or talents – but simply because she was British. Our businessmen in Europe may find a similar problem – the general assumption that Britain is a lame duck which will one day go off into isolation. Equally a company thinking of moving to the UK (and creating jobs!) has to have this prospect at the back of their mind. This is something David Cameron and the Tory media never think of – how their hostility to the EU has a knock-on effect on our influence.
So should we leave the EU? As I said, the EU is far from perfect – would our withdrawal improve it? Would our retreat from our major trading partners during a recession help our own economy? Are world powers more likely to invest in the UK if we have detached ourselves from this trading bloc? Could the UK, on its own, profit in a world of growing economies such as NAFTA and the BRIC nations? Is the EU really a German-led plot to succeed where the Wehrmacht failed and that all the other nations are conspirators along for the journey? If the EU is so evil, why is there a queue of nations wanting to join and, apart from the UK, barely a whisper from anyone about leaving?
Having said that, I would favour an in-out referendum as argued in an earlier entry. Our progress and contribution in the European project is being held back by the internal threat posed to our economic security from the Eurosceptics – so once the referendum is won (which I believe it can be) the anti-EUs will be neutralised and then we can all campaign for the type of EU we want to see.
Another expression we often hear – particularly in Conservative circles – is ‘repatriation of powers’. This is the view that the EU have taken away many powers that national states used to exert and that the state should have them back. This is a good phrase but of course deliberately vague. There have been cases, for example, where European laws have trumped UK ones – for example, the EU have often forced workers’ rights onto reluctant UK governments of both colours. It was not a UK government who granted measures of flexible working or paternity leave. By definition, ‘repatriation of powers’ is a backward step, when we should be looking forwards.
The biggest issue in Europe today, both in and out of the EU, is the Euro crisis. Again the UK, a major player on the continent, and with one of the world’s biggest economic centres of power and expertise in the City, could make a contribution to the issue. It is in our interests, after all, for a stable and prosperous Euro. However, the government have put us on the outside of the debate, with a glass on the wall listening to what others are discussing. I was particularly alarmed by David Cameron’s suggestion of the EU having two budgets – one for the 17 countries in the Eurozone and one of the 10 outside, which would move the EU into internal conflict and possibly permanent separation – at a time when all 27 should be drawing together.
We need the UK to engage positively with our EU partners, to throw our weight into solving the Euro crisis, to continue to co-operate and work together on cross-border problems such as the environment, terrorism, illegal immigration and organised crime. And to fight for the type of European Union we want to see – a streamlined organisation developing a completely free trade zone for mutual economic security and prosperity.
This is a clear issue on which we in the Liberal Democrats disagree with our national coalition partners. Where they stand on the cliffs of Dover and stick two fingers up in a south east direction, we instead stretch out our right arm to grab a hand. Where the Tories say ‘give us back our powers’, we say ‘let us all be powerful together’.
We are the most pro-European major political party – I think that is a fact we should trumpet out loud. We will be called traitors and quislings by the media, but I have found that people generally accept the importance of the European Union and the need for us to be involved – especially during difficult economic times. In terms of businesses, large and small, and jobs, continued and growing interdependence is vital.
It will not be long before we are campaigning for the 2014 European parliament elections. At the last elections in 2009, UKIP did well, mainly because the vote took place during the expenses scandal when perceptions of the three parties were very low. This time, unless there is another scandal, we should see the established parties regain some ground.
The Labour party will continue to campaign on their policy of having no policies. The Conservatives will try to be pro- and anti-European at the same time. UKIP will be, well, UKIP.
I hope the Liberal Democrats fly the flag high for Europe. Fight the elections on European issues. And continue to send a growing and talented band of MEPs to fight for our country’s interests. After all, someone has to!!
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Reshuffling Thoughts 2 - The Liberal Democrats
It was Sir Humphrey in the great Yes Minister who said ‘a
party with just over 300 MPs forms a government and of these 300, 100 are too
old and too silly to be ministers and 100 too young and too callow. Therefore
there are about 100 MPs to fill 100 government posts. Effectively no choice at
all’.
Indeed when you look amongst the 300-odd Conservative MPs, once you take out those who are constantly rebellious, politically immature, too old or just simply bonkers, there is not a lot left – so David Cameron’s task when putting the government together is not as difficult as it seems. No Lords or EU rebel got promoted so that’s a third of the parliamentary party for a start.
For the Liberal Democrats, however, the opposite is the case. Where you have fewer MPs (the ‘cream rises to the top’), coupled with a limited number of ministerial places, there is simply too much talent to go round. The Lib Dems are blessed to have so much quality on its benches but cursed in that it cannot be put to full use in the government’s service. So while it is pleasing to see David Laws, Norman Lamb and Jo Swinson enter the government, it is sad to see Sarah Teather, Nick Harvey and Paul Burstow depart.
One view of this is to share out the responsibility. When the election comes, half of the parliamentary party will have had ministerial experience which will stand well both for any future plans the party may be involved in (another coalition?), or, to take the worst case, their individual career development outside parliament.
But the crux of the matter is – David Cameron’s question was who to bring in, Nick Clegg’s was who can we afford to live without?
Of course, if the Lib Dems had 300 MPs then doubtless we would have as many donkeys as the other two parties. But, pound for pound, it is clear that the Liberal Democrat parliamentary party is the most talented grouping in parliament.
So what of the reshuffle? Firstly, there was some dismay in Lib Dem quarters at having no-one in either the Foreign Office or Defence. To be honest, this does not concern me too much. As I said last time, I think William Hague is doing an impressive job and Nick Clegg can speak for the party if required. As for defence, again Clegg could cover but the argument for an alternative to Trident can be continued outside the department.
Secondly, no change in the cabinet. The only other role Vince Cable could be considered for is Chancellor of the Exchequer which will not happen. Danny Alexander is doing a fine job, Michael Moore has not done anything wrong and Ed Davey is on the right lines. The addition of David Laws in a roving role will be interesting (although I am not sure what that means – will he be a consigliere like Ken Clarke?). David Laws is the only Liberal Democrat to get regular kind words from Conservative Home – although this could be a double-edged sword.
There were rumours that Lib Dems (possibly Laws) would be given the Health department – and administer the Tory NHS reforms – an idea whose flaws are rather obvious.
It is at the junior levels that we now look and we see that concentration is being made on areas we hold dear. In Education (Laws), Health (Lamb), Business (Swinson) and Agriculture (David Heath), we have a more prominent and strengthened role - both to push our own views and check the Conservative ideas. (To be fair, not all Tory ideas are bad - but there are some which need, shall we say, another view).
My main concern has been Lynne Featherstone’s move to international development, which will reinforce this amongst the government's priorities, but the loss of the equalities brief – a role in which she excelled – could be very harmful, and implies that Cameron may again be placating his backbenchers, especially on same sex marriage.
How do the Liberal Democrats now fit into the government as a whole? Overall, I would be optimistic. There is influence in most of the key areas of the government and I would hope to see greater Liberal Democrats prominence as a whole. In a recent survey by Lord Ashcroft, 51% wanted to see more Lib Dem influence on the government so let us hope this will go partly in that direction. (There are many on the Tory Right who argue that Lib Dems have too much influence – an argument not borne out by the facts).
I want to see our ministers, new and old, come forward with proposals. The main priority is growth and the economy. The only Conservative idea is to cut taxes for the rich and benefits for the poor, which history has shown does not work. Liberal Democrats can think broadly and have greater initiative – balancing the need for a growing economy with a liberal sense of justice and fairness. It is up to us to free the government from the shackles of the Tory Right and push forward our plans.
Now the reshuffle is over, let us hope that the desperate yearning for a coalition collapse, that we see every week in the media and on the Conservative backbenches, will subside and the new administration can be left to get on with it. There is after all no shortage of work to do.
FOOTNOTE: However, as I prepare this entry, an interview has arisen with Michael Fallon, newly appointed business minister, in which he makes clear his views that we should salute ‘wealth creators’ (Tory-speak for ‘the rich’), and make it easier to sack people (the most famous and ridiculous part of the Beecroft report). One has to question the wisdom of the two leaders in allowing such potential tensions in a department as important as business.
Indeed when you look amongst the 300-odd Conservative MPs, once you take out those who are constantly rebellious, politically immature, too old or just simply bonkers, there is not a lot left – so David Cameron’s task when putting the government together is not as difficult as it seems. No Lords or EU rebel got promoted so that’s a third of the parliamentary party for a start.
For the Liberal Democrats, however, the opposite is the case. Where you have fewer MPs (the ‘cream rises to the top’), coupled with a limited number of ministerial places, there is simply too much talent to go round. The Lib Dems are blessed to have so much quality on its benches but cursed in that it cannot be put to full use in the government’s service. So while it is pleasing to see David Laws, Norman Lamb and Jo Swinson enter the government, it is sad to see Sarah Teather, Nick Harvey and Paul Burstow depart.
One view of this is to share out the responsibility. When the election comes, half of the parliamentary party will have had ministerial experience which will stand well both for any future plans the party may be involved in (another coalition?), or, to take the worst case, their individual career development outside parliament.
But the crux of the matter is – David Cameron’s question was who to bring in, Nick Clegg’s was who can we afford to live without?
Of course, if the Lib Dems had 300 MPs then doubtless we would have as many donkeys as the other two parties. But, pound for pound, it is clear that the Liberal Democrat parliamentary party is the most talented grouping in parliament.
So what of the reshuffle? Firstly, there was some dismay in Lib Dem quarters at having no-one in either the Foreign Office or Defence. To be honest, this does not concern me too much. As I said last time, I think William Hague is doing an impressive job and Nick Clegg can speak for the party if required. As for defence, again Clegg could cover but the argument for an alternative to Trident can be continued outside the department.
Secondly, no change in the cabinet. The only other role Vince Cable could be considered for is Chancellor of the Exchequer which will not happen. Danny Alexander is doing a fine job, Michael Moore has not done anything wrong and Ed Davey is on the right lines. The addition of David Laws in a roving role will be interesting (although I am not sure what that means – will he be a consigliere like Ken Clarke?). David Laws is the only Liberal Democrat to get regular kind words from Conservative Home – although this could be a double-edged sword.
There were rumours that Lib Dems (possibly Laws) would be given the Health department – and administer the Tory NHS reforms – an idea whose flaws are rather obvious.
It is at the junior levels that we now look and we see that concentration is being made on areas we hold dear. In Education (Laws), Health (Lamb), Business (Swinson) and Agriculture (David Heath), we have a more prominent and strengthened role - both to push our own views and check the Conservative ideas. (To be fair, not all Tory ideas are bad - but there are some which need, shall we say, another view).
My main concern has been Lynne Featherstone’s move to international development, which will reinforce this amongst the government's priorities, but the loss of the equalities brief – a role in which she excelled – could be very harmful, and implies that Cameron may again be placating his backbenchers, especially on same sex marriage.
How do the Liberal Democrats now fit into the government as a whole? Overall, I would be optimistic. There is influence in most of the key areas of the government and I would hope to see greater Liberal Democrats prominence as a whole. In a recent survey by Lord Ashcroft, 51% wanted to see more Lib Dem influence on the government so let us hope this will go partly in that direction. (There are many on the Tory Right who argue that Lib Dems have too much influence – an argument not borne out by the facts).
I want to see our ministers, new and old, come forward with proposals. The main priority is growth and the economy. The only Conservative idea is to cut taxes for the rich and benefits for the poor, which history has shown does not work. Liberal Democrats can think broadly and have greater initiative – balancing the need for a growing economy with a liberal sense of justice and fairness. It is up to us to free the government from the shackles of the Tory Right and push forward our plans.
Now the reshuffle is over, let us hope that the desperate yearning for a coalition collapse, that we see every week in the media and on the Conservative backbenches, will subside and the new administration can be left to get on with it. There is after all no shortage of work to do.
FOOTNOTE: However, as I prepare this entry, an interview has arisen with Michael Fallon, newly appointed business minister, in which he makes clear his views that we should salute ‘wealth creators’ (Tory-speak for ‘the rich’), and make it easier to sack people (the most famous and ridiculous part of the Beecroft report). One has to question the wisdom of the two leaders in allowing such potential tensions in a department as important as business.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Reshuffling Thoughts 1 - The Conservatives
‘A move to the right’ seems to be the overwhelming view amongst the media of this week’s government reshuffle, alongside its weekly speculation of the collapse of the coalition. Personally I think this is a bit simplistic – but the reshuffle has proved to be more interesting than I thought it might be.
Firstly, we must note what David Cameron could not do. Obviously he could not sack George Osborne. There is little doubt that Osborne has to date been a considerable failure in the post, but to abandon him now would be admitting the failure of Plan A. There is also the crucial role of taking the flak. John Major found that, after sacking his Chancellor Norman Lamont, he had lost a shield and all the subsequent criticism came directly his way. With Osborne in post, George can act as an air raid shelter for the Prime Minister. (My preference for Chancellor would be for the radical solution of giving Vince Cable the post – he is easily the best qualified candidate – but I accept that won’t happen).
No problem with William Hague in the Foreign Office – he seems born for the role – but Teresa May has been a disaster in the Home Office. From ‘cat-gate’ to borders to immigration, the blunders just go on and on. One could argue that Home Secretary is the most difficult government job, but Ms May seems completely incompetent in the role. Cynics observe she is only there because of her gender – I don’t think this is the case. However it is getting harder to believe that David Cameron genuinely thinks she is the best person for the job.
So despite two of them deserving to go, David Cameron could not move the big beasts. What about the medium sized beasts?
Reading through the changes I got the impression that Cameron felt the need (but not the desire) to placate his backbenches. As we have seen again and again, many Conservative MPs lack the maturity and the discipline to play a responsible role in backing their own leadership. They pick and choose which bits of the coalition agreement to support, and expect everyone else to keep to the agreements. (It is interesting to note that reportedly several Conservative MPs turned down a job in the whip’s office in order to be free to attack their own government!) So this is where the ‘move to the right’ comes in.
Arguably the most interesting move is Chris Grayling taking over Justice. The move of my fellow High Wycombe Royal Grammar School Old Boy to replace Ken Clarke is a clear change of direction. While some Lib Dems were unhappy with this move, I await developments with interest. I think Grayling will find it frustrating that he can talk tough but actually, due to the limitations of coalition, his position, and human rights, he can actually do very little. In the meantime, from now on, everyone we can’t deport, he will have to share the fault with Ms May.
Grayling has been in the London news lately for a scheme whereby youth unemployed will do unpaid work in return for their benefits – and this has got quite a negative response. I wonder if Cameron has ‘over-promoted’ him, both to keep him away from trouble, but also to neutralise a possible future leadership rival.
And what about Ken Clarke? Having him as a Minister without Portfolio sounds like he will be some sort of ‘consigliere’. I think Cameron appreciates the advice of his most experienced Minister but again is placating to his backbenches by removing any responsibility – a shocking and disrespectful way to treat someone of his stature.
Another stand out move is that of Jeremy Hunt to Health. Not long ago, he was on the edge of resignation, so to then get promoted is quite an achievement. One wonders if one motive of this is to start moves at making up with Murdoch with the next election in mind. How will Mr Hunt do with Health? After all the upheavals of the NHS restructuring, it may be a quiet department where he can settle down and be off the front pages for a while.
And the third Heathrow runway is back via Justine Greening’s move (and of course Boris bursting onto the scene – because it has been all of twenty minutes since he was last in the headlines). If the government were now to back the third runway it would be the biggest of all U-turns, but my guess is that the way is now open for a review to be carried out which will not report until after 2015 – a review that would not have happened without a favourable Transport Secretary.
Those are some early thoughts on the Conservative side of the reshuffle. Next, some thoughts on the Liberal Democrat reshuffle, how we can fit into all this, and how we can move forwards through the second half of this parliament.
Firstly, we must note what David Cameron could not do. Obviously he could not sack George Osborne. There is little doubt that Osborne has to date been a considerable failure in the post, but to abandon him now would be admitting the failure of Plan A. There is also the crucial role of taking the flak. John Major found that, after sacking his Chancellor Norman Lamont, he had lost a shield and all the subsequent criticism came directly his way. With Osborne in post, George can act as an air raid shelter for the Prime Minister. (My preference for Chancellor would be for the radical solution of giving Vince Cable the post – he is easily the best qualified candidate – but I accept that won’t happen).
No problem with William Hague in the Foreign Office – he seems born for the role – but Teresa May has been a disaster in the Home Office. From ‘cat-gate’ to borders to immigration, the blunders just go on and on. One could argue that Home Secretary is the most difficult government job, but Ms May seems completely incompetent in the role. Cynics observe she is only there because of her gender – I don’t think this is the case. However it is getting harder to believe that David Cameron genuinely thinks she is the best person for the job.
So despite two of them deserving to go, David Cameron could not move the big beasts. What about the medium sized beasts?
Reading through the changes I got the impression that Cameron felt the need (but not the desire) to placate his backbenches. As we have seen again and again, many Conservative MPs lack the maturity and the discipline to play a responsible role in backing their own leadership. They pick and choose which bits of the coalition agreement to support, and expect everyone else to keep to the agreements. (It is interesting to note that reportedly several Conservative MPs turned down a job in the whip’s office in order to be free to attack their own government!) So this is where the ‘move to the right’ comes in.
Arguably the most interesting move is Chris Grayling taking over Justice. The move of my fellow High Wycombe Royal Grammar School Old Boy to replace Ken Clarke is a clear change of direction. While some Lib Dems were unhappy with this move, I await developments with interest. I think Grayling will find it frustrating that he can talk tough but actually, due to the limitations of coalition, his position, and human rights, he can actually do very little. In the meantime, from now on, everyone we can’t deport, he will have to share the fault with Ms May.
Grayling has been in the London news lately for a scheme whereby youth unemployed will do unpaid work in return for their benefits – and this has got quite a negative response. I wonder if Cameron has ‘over-promoted’ him, both to keep him away from trouble, but also to neutralise a possible future leadership rival.
And what about Ken Clarke? Having him as a Minister without Portfolio sounds like he will be some sort of ‘consigliere’. I think Cameron appreciates the advice of his most experienced Minister but again is placating to his backbenches by removing any responsibility – a shocking and disrespectful way to treat someone of his stature.
Another stand out move is that of Jeremy Hunt to Health. Not long ago, he was on the edge of resignation, so to then get promoted is quite an achievement. One wonders if one motive of this is to start moves at making up with Murdoch with the next election in mind. How will Mr Hunt do with Health? After all the upheavals of the NHS restructuring, it may be a quiet department where he can settle down and be off the front pages for a while.
And the third Heathrow runway is back via Justine Greening’s move (and of course Boris bursting onto the scene – because it has been all of twenty minutes since he was last in the headlines). If the government were now to back the third runway it would be the biggest of all U-turns, but my guess is that the way is now open for a review to be carried out which will not report until after 2015 – a review that would not have happened without a favourable Transport Secretary.
Those are some early thoughts on the Conservative side of the reshuffle. Next, some thoughts on the Liberal Democrat reshuffle, how we can fit into all this, and how we can move forwards through the second half of this parliament.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Forget coalitions - we want 100 MPs!
Picture the scene: It is the Liberal Democrat party conference 2025, and the party are in high spirits. The leader stands on the stage and makes the welcoming speech to the faithful.
‘Not so long ago, it was said that the third party of British politics could travel to parliament in a taxi. Well, look how we travel now.’
At this stage a long line of London black cabs drive in and the occupants disembark.
‘Conference, I give you 100 Liberal Democrat MPs’ – as they all line up on the stage in front of an audience cheering and applauding warmly.
--
The word ‘coalition’ was never mentioned in British politics during the 1980s and 1990s – yet since 2010, we have heard nothing else. There is a general obsession with two topics – when will the UK government Tory-Lib Dem coalition end – and what will the next coalition look like after 2015?
There has been much speculation about the result of the 2015 general election – if it is another hung parliament, which way will the Liberal Democrats tread? Will we stay with the Tories or jump off with Labour? Indeed, will the Lib Dems become regular kingmakers?
It was a correct decision to go into coalition after the 2010 general election – but I have to ask – is the status of junior partner the height of our ambitions? Do we just want to tag along in a series of coalitions? It is right to be open to working with those of like minds – but are we not forgetting that we are our own party, with our own policies, principles and beliefs? And, the biggest prize of all, do we not all desire to see a Liberal Democrat Prime Minister walking into Number 10?
With whom would we enter these coalitions? We know the Conservative party cannot be trusted – their backbench MPs delight in the fact that their leader cannot speak for them. But how would we stand with Labour, who at the end of the day will always work with the Conservatives if it meant frustrating Liberal Democrat ambitions? The bottom line is that we will do badly out of either coalition option.
Whatever the result of the 2015 election, and assuming we are not the biggest party, I would like to see us back in opposition – not in blind opposition, but voting with the government if we agree with them and campaigning against on matters we do not.
Meanwhile we build and we build. We’ve taken knocks in the recent local elections, and we have more to come – and, let’s be frank, we will lose some MPs in 2015. But I want us to use the period after that to rebuild and reinvigorate our party, our local government base, and our support – and then from 2020, a full-on offensive in certain target constituencies and see how far we can go.
I expect many reading this piece will argue that, under first-past-the-post, we will never get 100 MPs. But look at this page - http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/liberal-democrat-target-seats. As you can see, as well as our 57 MPs, small swings towards us in target seats will result in more victories coming our way. A swing of 3.5% from the Conservatives gives us 18 seats. A swing of 2% from Labour gives us ten more. Ambitious? Yes, of course. But why not? If we can go from 20 seats in 1995 to 62 in 2005 – trebling our parliamentary party in ten years – why can’t we keep going?
So my request to the party is to stop talking coalition and start talking Liberal Democrat. Let’s aim for those 100 MPs. Let’s get more Liberal Democrats into parliament!
‘Not so long ago, it was said that the third party of British politics could travel to parliament in a taxi. Well, look how we travel now.’
At this stage a long line of London black cabs drive in and the occupants disembark.
‘Conference, I give you 100 Liberal Democrat MPs’ – as they all line up on the stage in front of an audience cheering and applauding warmly.
--
The word ‘coalition’ was never mentioned in British politics during the 1980s and 1990s – yet since 2010, we have heard nothing else. There is a general obsession with two topics – when will the UK government Tory-Lib Dem coalition end – and what will the next coalition look like after 2015?
There has been much speculation about the result of the 2015 general election – if it is another hung parliament, which way will the Liberal Democrats tread? Will we stay with the Tories or jump off with Labour? Indeed, will the Lib Dems become regular kingmakers?
It was a correct decision to go into coalition after the 2010 general election – but I have to ask – is the status of junior partner the height of our ambitions? Do we just want to tag along in a series of coalitions? It is right to be open to working with those of like minds – but are we not forgetting that we are our own party, with our own policies, principles and beliefs? And, the biggest prize of all, do we not all desire to see a Liberal Democrat Prime Minister walking into Number 10?
With whom would we enter these coalitions? We know the Conservative party cannot be trusted – their backbench MPs delight in the fact that their leader cannot speak for them. But how would we stand with Labour, who at the end of the day will always work with the Conservatives if it meant frustrating Liberal Democrat ambitions? The bottom line is that we will do badly out of either coalition option.
Whatever the result of the 2015 election, and assuming we are not the biggest party, I would like to see us back in opposition – not in blind opposition, but voting with the government if we agree with them and campaigning against on matters we do not.
Meanwhile we build and we build. We’ve taken knocks in the recent local elections, and we have more to come – and, let’s be frank, we will lose some MPs in 2015. But I want us to use the period after that to rebuild and reinvigorate our party, our local government base, and our support – and then from 2020, a full-on offensive in certain target constituencies and see how far we can go.
I expect many reading this piece will argue that, under first-past-the-post, we will never get 100 MPs. But look at this page - http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/liberal-democrat-target-seats. As you can see, as well as our 57 MPs, small swings towards us in target seats will result in more victories coming our way. A swing of 3.5% from the Conservatives gives us 18 seats. A swing of 2% from Labour gives us ten more. Ambitious? Yes, of course. But why not? If we can go from 20 seats in 1995 to 62 in 2005 – trebling our parliamentary party in ten years – why can’t we keep going?
So my request to the party is to stop talking coalition and start talking Liberal Democrat. Let’s aim for those 100 MPs. Let’s get more Liberal Democrats into parliament!
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
The Morning After: My Thoughts
It may seem strange that a victory of 462 votes to 124 on the Bill for an elected Lords is coming across as a defeat – but let’s make no mistake. A defeat it is. Because of Labour’s lack of support for a programme motion, which would have set a timetable, the Tory rebellion would have been big enough to defeat the motion - and hence the Conservatives can now simply talk the Bill out.
Labour wanted it both ways – they supported the Bill to reform the Lords and then colluded with the Tory rebels to ensure that it would never happen. In trying to wear two hats, and hence two faces, the new modern Labour party is defending the privilege and patronage of the House of Lords. The Con-Lab coalition, referred to in my last post, is as strong as ever.
As for the Conservatives, clearly David Cameron has lost all discipline and authority in his party. He can no longer bring anything for certainty to the table. There is no point in a second coalition agreement as Cameron cannot guarantee that he can deliver. If he had shown some leadership ages ago, and removed the whip from one or two troublemakers, then the rest would have fallen into line. Instead he is now a lame duck leader. A teacher unable to control the children. In football terms, he has ‘lost the dressing room’.
Our greatest contempt should go to those Tory ‘rebels’. As I put in an earlier post, the Lib Dems have given and sacrificed much to provide a stable government in difficult economic times for the good of the country, and have held their noses as they have voted for Conservative policies. In return, the Tories and media have just thrown abuse and insults at Clegg and the party – like a spoilt child always wanting more.
The Conservative parliamentary party are simply too immature to be seriously trusted with any power and responsibility – and Cameron knows it.
In a way I feel sorry for David Cameron. We will be rid of the Tory backbenchers in 2015. He is lumbered with them for eternity.
So where do we go from here? Firstly, despite my harsh words, it is my view we should not end the coalition. The main reason for the coalition – to provide stability and work towards reducing the deficit – remains. In one aspect, the rebels are correct – the economy is the most important issue and we must continue to work together with the more adult Tories to get that right.
However, we should reject any coalition after 2015. If either of the other two get a majority, then good luck to them. We should back them if we agree and fight where we do not. Otherwise we should be prepared to work with any other party but on a much looser basis. We cannot continue the coalition with the Conservatives, when as demonstrated David Cameron is unable to keep his word, and nor should we enter coalition with Labour, who would clearly prefer to work with the Tories.
In opposition, we should use that time to regroup and rebuild, and continue to scrutinise whoever forms the government. We can then come back revived and refreshed in 2020.
But this is three years away and there is still much to do. For now we should keep going, keep winning the arguments, keep both eyes on the Tories, and keep pushing forward with the main objective to do what we can to make this country a fairer society by 2015.
Labour wanted it both ways – they supported the Bill to reform the Lords and then colluded with the Tory rebels to ensure that it would never happen. In trying to wear two hats, and hence two faces, the new modern Labour party is defending the privilege and patronage of the House of Lords. The Con-Lab coalition, referred to in my last post, is as strong as ever.
As for the Conservatives, clearly David Cameron has lost all discipline and authority in his party. He can no longer bring anything for certainty to the table. There is no point in a second coalition agreement as Cameron cannot guarantee that he can deliver. If he had shown some leadership ages ago, and removed the whip from one or two troublemakers, then the rest would have fallen into line. Instead he is now a lame duck leader. A teacher unable to control the children. In football terms, he has ‘lost the dressing room’.
Our greatest contempt should go to those Tory ‘rebels’. As I put in an earlier post, the Lib Dems have given and sacrificed much to provide a stable government in difficult economic times for the good of the country, and have held their noses as they have voted for Conservative policies. In return, the Tories and media have just thrown abuse and insults at Clegg and the party – like a spoilt child always wanting more.
The Conservative parliamentary party are simply too immature to be seriously trusted with any power and responsibility – and Cameron knows it.
In a way I feel sorry for David Cameron. We will be rid of the Tory backbenchers in 2015. He is lumbered with them for eternity.
So where do we go from here? Firstly, despite my harsh words, it is my view we should not end the coalition. The main reason for the coalition – to provide stability and work towards reducing the deficit – remains. In one aspect, the rebels are correct – the economy is the most important issue and we must continue to work together with the more adult Tories to get that right.
However, we should reject any coalition after 2015. If either of the other two get a majority, then good luck to them. We should back them if we agree and fight where we do not. Otherwise we should be prepared to work with any other party but on a much looser basis. We cannot continue the coalition with the Conservatives, when as demonstrated David Cameron is unable to keep his word, and nor should we enter coalition with Labour, who would clearly prefer to work with the Tories.
In opposition, we should use that time to regroup and rebuild, and continue to scrutinise whoever forms the government. We can then come back revived and refreshed in 2020.
But this is three years away and there is still much to do. For now we should keep going, keep winning the arguments, keep both eyes on the Tories, and keep pushing forward with the main objective to do what we can to make this country a fairer society by 2015.
Sunday, July 8, 2012
The War Of Two Coalitions
Over the last two years, it has become clearer and more evident
that our political landscape is a struggle between two coalitions. We have one
coalition which is open, temporary, business-like and at times unsteady. And
there is another which is very firm, strong and long-lasting, and possibly will
out-live all of us.
The first is the current Conservative-Liberal Democrats coalition (‘Con-LD’). This currently runs the government and was the result of an indecisive general election. Its’ main purpose is to secure a stable administration during difficult economic times and put into place a deficit reduction programme and other measures agreed in a coalition agreement. It is due to run for five years and come to an end in 2015.
However, it becomes clearer each day that its’ main opponent is the formidable Conservative-Labour coalition (‘Con-Lab’). This is a far stronger coalition, in place since 1945, and infinitely more difficult to break down. Its successful objective has been to work together to secure the two party hegemony. This coalition is, of course, secret and unacknowledged by either party.
So where is the evidence for this contention – that in any dispute with a third party, the two big old failed parties will close ranks? This is as follows.
Firstly, since the 1970s, the ‘others’ have secured at least a quarter of the votes. The Liberals in 1974 and the Alliance in 1983-87 got 25% alone, and were rewarded with a tiny fraction of seats. To the horrors of the Con-Lab coalition, 35% (over a third) of voters chose someone else in 2010. We are now clearly a multi-party democracy.
Any sane society would seek to reflect this change of circumstances by putting into place a fairer electoral system. Instead the Con-Lab coalition have robustly defended first-past-the-post – a system which grossly over-inflates their vote, and makes it possible, as we saw in 2005, that one party can dominate parliament with 35% of the votes – barely a fifth of the electorate.
As the Soviet empire fell, and as democracy spread throughout eastern Europe, Africa and Asia, it is noteworthy that no new democratic country has adopted the first-past-the-post system to choose their representatives.
True, we had a referendum on changing the system, into which the Tories and the media pulled their enormous resources. Despite Ed Miliband’s support, did we get a full throttle, active campaign from Labour – or instead a mixed, half-hearted effort more interested in working with the Tories and against Nick Clegg rather than take this historic opportunity?
Secondly, since 1945, the rules of party funding continue to bias the two big parties. The Tories have big business and Labour have the trade unions. The Liberal Democrats and others have quiz nights and car boot sales. So the Con-Lab coalition can dwarf anyone else in terms of putting resources into campaigning. (Party funding is currently being reviewed but does anyone think there will be actual genuine change?)
Thirdly, before the current Con-LD coalition, there was one example of third party co-operation since 1945 – the Lib-Lab Pact of 1977-78 of which I wrote earlier. The Liberals' reward was to be proportional representation for the first European Parliament elections in 1979 – yet when it came to it, Labour betrayed the Liberals and voted with the Tories to ensure first-past-the-post.
And finally, we come to the most recent example – House of Lords reform. This is a once-in-a-century opportunity to finally have a second elected democratically-accountable chamber. Labour should be enthusiastically supporting this principle. Instead they plan to ally with the Tory rebels to ensure the reforms are talked out.
The ghosts of the great socialists of the past must be disgusted that, after all the struggles it took to get socialism established in this country, their beloved Labour party are now backing privilege and patronage over democracy. Keir Hardie and Michael Foot must be rolling in their graves.
It is suggested that the Liberal Democrats may block the boundary changes. Tories need not worry. If there is any doubt, I think Labour will vote to push them through. The changes may harm Labour and benefit the Tories – but they will harm the Liberal Democrats most of all – and, in my view, Labour would be happy to see years of Tory government, and the country suffer as a result, if it meant the extinction of the Liberal Democrats.
Of course, there are certain people on both sides prepared to defy the Con-Lab coalition and work with others. To his credit, David Cameron has proved willing to work with the Lib Dems, has become the first Prime Minister to sacrifice his right to call an election at will, and is to an extent promoting Lords reform. For Labour, Ed Miliband and Peter Mandelson have discussed willingness to work across party lines. Whether each can defeat the establishment within their own parties is doubtful.
This brings us to the question – how can we break this coalition? How can we end the Con-Lab coalition which has been in effect since 1945? Well, the answer is – I don’t know. The Con-LD coalition will end soon but the Con-Lab deal is as strong as concrete. The only hope is with the other parties – Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the Green, the Nationalists, the English Democrats etc.
If we can see more and more votes taken away from the big two, if we eventually see more progressive leadership from either big party, if we see our multi-party democracy continue to grow and develop, then maybe – just maybe – we will get genuine change in this country. Although how many of us will be around to see it is another question.
The first is the current Conservative-Liberal Democrats coalition (‘Con-LD’). This currently runs the government and was the result of an indecisive general election. Its’ main purpose is to secure a stable administration during difficult economic times and put into place a deficit reduction programme and other measures agreed in a coalition agreement. It is due to run for five years and come to an end in 2015.
However, it becomes clearer each day that its’ main opponent is the formidable Conservative-Labour coalition (‘Con-Lab’). This is a far stronger coalition, in place since 1945, and infinitely more difficult to break down. Its successful objective has been to work together to secure the two party hegemony. This coalition is, of course, secret and unacknowledged by either party.
So where is the evidence for this contention – that in any dispute with a third party, the two big old failed parties will close ranks? This is as follows.
Firstly, since the 1970s, the ‘others’ have secured at least a quarter of the votes. The Liberals in 1974 and the Alliance in 1983-87 got 25% alone, and were rewarded with a tiny fraction of seats. To the horrors of the Con-Lab coalition, 35% (over a third) of voters chose someone else in 2010. We are now clearly a multi-party democracy.
Any sane society would seek to reflect this change of circumstances by putting into place a fairer electoral system. Instead the Con-Lab coalition have robustly defended first-past-the-post – a system which grossly over-inflates their vote, and makes it possible, as we saw in 2005, that one party can dominate parliament with 35% of the votes – barely a fifth of the electorate.
As the Soviet empire fell, and as democracy spread throughout eastern Europe, Africa and Asia, it is noteworthy that no new democratic country has adopted the first-past-the-post system to choose their representatives.
True, we had a referendum on changing the system, into which the Tories and the media pulled their enormous resources. Despite Ed Miliband’s support, did we get a full throttle, active campaign from Labour – or instead a mixed, half-hearted effort more interested in working with the Tories and against Nick Clegg rather than take this historic opportunity?
Secondly, since 1945, the rules of party funding continue to bias the two big parties. The Tories have big business and Labour have the trade unions. The Liberal Democrats and others have quiz nights and car boot sales. So the Con-Lab coalition can dwarf anyone else in terms of putting resources into campaigning. (Party funding is currently being reviewed but does anyone think there will be actual genuine change?)
Thirdly, before the current Con-LD coalition, there was one example of third party co-operation since 1945 – the Lib-Lab Pact of 1977-78 of which I wrote earlier. The Liberals' reward was to be proportional representation for the first European Parliament elections in 1979 – yet when it came to it, Labour betrayed the Liberals and voted with the Tories to ensure first-past-the-post.
And finally, we come to the most recent example – House of Lords reform. This is a once-in-a-century opportunity to finally have a second elected democratically-accountable chamber. Labour should be enthusiastically supporting this principle. Instead they plan to ally with the Tory rebels to ensure the reforms are talked out.
The ghosts of the great socialists of the past must be disgusted that, after all the struggles it took to get socialism established in this country, their beloved Labour party are now backing privilege and patronage over democracy. Keir Hardie and Michael Foot must be rolling in their graves.
It is suggested that the Liberal Democrats may block the boundary changes. Tories need not worry. If there is any doubt, I think Labour will vote to push them through. The changes may harm Labour and benefit the Tories – but they will harm the Liberal Democrats most of all – and, in my view, Labour would be happy to see years of Tory government, and the country suffer as a result, if it meant the extinction of the Liberal Democrats.
Of course, there are certain people on both sides prepared to defy the Con-Lab coalition and work with others. To his credit, David Cameron has proved willing to work with the Lib Dems, has become the first Prime Minister to sacrifice his right to call an election at will, and is to an extent promoting Lords reform. For Labour, Ed Miliband and Peter Mandelson have discussed willingness to work across party lines. Whether each can defeat the establishment within their own parties is doubtful.
This brings us to the question – how can we break this coalition? How can we end the Con-Lab coalition which has been in effect since 1945? Well, the answer is – I don’t know. The Con-LD coalition will end soon but the Con-Lab deal is as strong as concrete. The only hope is with the other parties – Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the Green, the Nationalists, the English Democrats etc.
If we can see more and more votes taken away from the big two, if we eventually see more progressive leadership from either big party, if we see our multi-party democracy continue to grow and develop, then maybe – just maybe – we will get genuine change in this country. Although how many of us will be around to see it is another question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)