The Bewilderness

Give the Lords back their veto

Part of the journey of conservatism is to maintain or restore the natural balances within the Constitution. One of the greatest of these was a bicameral system, whereby a second chamber could overrule the first, if deemed appropriate. Bicameralism was abandoned during the constitutional crisis of 1910 to 1912 when peers threatened to veto the budget, overruling the elected government of the day. At the dawn of mass politics, this diehard reaction was viewed as the spasm of a landed class opposed to redsitributive taxation.

Yet, a second chamber that merely advises or delays is a hundred years old. The Parliament Act served as a statute to enshrine unicameral supremacy within Britain by augmenting the Commons. Such overweening power was last taken upon themselves by the revolutionaries in 1649. 

The Diehards, as the peers who wished to retain their veto were called, offered a model of a second chamber in 1910. The peers would elect 100 members, the Prime Minister would appoint 100 members and a final tranch of 100 would be directly elected. The retention of the veto was directly linked to the democratisation of the chamber. 

With the reforms proposed, democratisation would be achieved in a diluted and anodyne measure. Lords would be elected with little power, and only the most mediocre of party apparatchiks would desire to end their career in those halls. Public service as a motivation would be overshadowed by placemen, sinecures and cronies; we have seen enough of this pollution under New Labour.

To overcome the power of patronage and appointment, the triumph of the party machine and weak part-timers flattened by the Commons juggernaut, we should look at Lords reform afresh. A balance of tradition, appointment and democracy, infused with the power of veto, would spell deadlock or balance. Best that representation holds the edge over the other two elements, but overturn this dangerous innovation that has lasted a century and return to the bicameral system that fully expresses the genius of our antient constitution.

Desperately seeking subsidy

There is a lot of confusion over the status of Scotland if the vote for independence were to achieve its goal. Scottish nationalists argue that Scotland and what dismissively is referred to as 'the rest' would both have equal rights as successor states. This is certainly a new one for me. Secession equals two new states: not an existing United Kingdom and an independent Scotland.

Such semantics and screwball definitions are par for the Scottish nationalists; their desperation to get European subventions to replace ours is cringeworthy. Scotland without Europe will leave the subsidy junkies without a fix. Not that the English are much better in supping from Nanny's teat.

The House of Lards

The process of constitutional vandalism will be completed under this nominally conservative government. Whilst questions of democratic validity are left unanswered, Nick Clegg demonstrates his contempt for the 'ancient constitution' by comparing us with Belize (our former colony) and Jordan. And the cure: senators on 15 year terms, giving certain parties a potential stranglehold over process, elected by single transferable vote. 

Here is the quid pro quo that underlies the coalition: the secret deal which will have to be whipped through Parliament. Tories gain a more equal distribution of seats in the Commons and Liberal Democrats gain a modicum of influence through the Upper House. 

And how will this play out?

Mark Harper, the Cabinet Office minister, said it would be possible for the powers to change organically over time, and there was no need to set out those powers in legal form at this stage. He said a 15 year timetable has been set out for the reform, with peers elected for 15 year terms introduced in three tranches, so there was no need to rush into decisions on Lords powers.

An elected body will challenge Commons supremacy; will try to amend finance bills and will create a constitutional crisis. Imagine a left-wing Upper Chamber challenging the Commons...Clegg's reforms will feed parasitism, jobbery and partisan politics.

We should thank ourselves that he did not achieve his ultimate wet dream: bringing all MEPs back to Westminster as a second chamber...on second thoughts, UKIP would have stronger representation in London. 

Balls in the air for Scotland

The Liberal Democrats have attacked Alex Salmond in a speech from Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to the august corpocracy, the Scottish CBI. He opined on the level of debt that Scotland could expect (only £65 billion) and that the country would not benefit from independence. But England would, heh!

This is part of the 'mutual respect agenda'. Still, his illiteracy is countered by the SNP's who, in grand Brownstanding, calls for more government expenditure as a Plan B stimulus. Is Samond modelling Balls?

Bring on the referendum for Scottish dependence

The final results of the first post-electoral test for the coalition have come through. An unedifying result for the Liberal Democrats, confirming their lack of maturity in government. Unwilling to strategise, they hanker after the soft left vote that they have lost. Is it not telling that they also lost their potential right wing to the Conservatives...the tactical unwind is becoming a classic squeeze for the third party. Entry into power has been at the expense of the 'progressive majority' and the chance to remake the national system.

The council elections and referendum did not meet the expectations of the soft left. Expect the next attempt to introduce electoral form via Parliament as the 'progressive majority' decides to refuse the 'regressive electorate' a say. The Tories may come to rue winning the AV referendum, if Lib/Lab decide that they need to bring in a complex system of PR to cement their dominance. This has not had too much success over the long term. It took a decade for the SNP to gain a majority in Scotland within an electoral system designed to preserve Labour's dominance. Complacency and weak leadership overturned that myth.

Yet, the SNP will only obtain a referendum on Scottish dependence. Whether it is dependence on Westminster financial transfers or dependence on the English market, our weaker neighbour in the north will never find its feet without dancing nimbly to London's tune when required. The Irish example should show that an adolescent wish to escape English dominance leads to hubris and strategic miscalculation. One neutral state in the North Atlantic reaches is acceptable; two is a danger. (I bet Salmond argues that he gets the Security seat: as Scotland is the rightful successor nation or some such rubbish!)

Labour's new Senate will lock in groupthink

Another day, another dividing line. Labour wishes to set out new proposals, without a crossparty consensus, replacing the House of Lords with a Senate. The new upper Chamber would have the same revising powers. In shades of corporatism, there is a move afoot to ensure that representation for groups is guaranteed. Labour's PC agenda would be 'locked in' with the upper house.

One wonders if the Liberal Democrats have been involved in these discussions: a signal of the underhand horsetrading that is rumoured to be underway in the event of a hung Parliament.

Ministers are ready to announce their plans, which follow years of fruitless cross-party discussions and several votes in the House of Commons, in a bid to wrong-foot the Tories with polling day less than two months away.

Labour's plan is to provoke elements inside the Conservative Party to object to the reforms – which would allow it to paint David Cameron as wedded to old ideas of privilege.

No doubt we will hear voices stating that constitutional change should be apolitical and based upon a consensus. Rubbish! It will be partisan and fixed by party interests, but what will emerge may rise out of compromise and negotiation.

New Labour's gerrymandered election

In a speech to the Hansard Society last night, Jack Straw, Justice Secretary, derided Conservative plans to reduce the number of MPs in the House of Commons as undemocratic and dangerous. The underlying reason for this disapproval was an accusation of gerrymandering.

But Mr Straw said: ''The apparently virtuous call to cut the cost of politics is actually camouflage for a dangerous, destructive and anti-democratic piece of gerrymandering.

''The Conservative Party proposes to cut the number of MPs by 10% without testing the will of the people in a referendum and without any proper effort to seek any kind of cross-party consensus.

As the Telegraph article points out, the current geography of parliamentary constituencies benefits the Labour Party. A possible result at the next General Election is a Labour government with far fewer votes than the Conservatives: an undemocratic outcome.

Is reform to amend an unfair system and to redress an existing bias towards a political party gerrymandering? Only if the reforms were to lead to an inbuilt bias towards the Tories. But Straw's accusation should be contrasted with the sin of omission. Knowing of their inbuilt advantage, does the lack of action and continuance of a Labour advantage count as gerrymandering? The answer is Yes.

With such a hypocritical contrast displayed during a meeting on electoral reform, we hear the continued slogan of electoral reform disguising changes designed to cement Labour's dominance. Their contempt for democracy is palpable.

The creation of a not-quite quango

Imagine my astonishment when I saw that Labour had abolished a quango. The Chief Executive, who earned £214,000 a year, has departed and the organisation is being converted into an executive agency. The move acts as a leading indicator. The Ministry of Justice has little control over the costs of the quango:

The change of status was recommended by a separate review into legal aid which reported yesterday.

The study, by senior civil servant Sir Ian Magee, found a “substantial level” of concern about the Commission and identified an “urgent need for action”.

One can see the process: strike up a review to air concerns over an independent agency, exert control and then cut. Legal aid is definitely a target for the pipeline of cuts:

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, yesterday described the system as “one of the most generous legal aid schemes in the world”. He added: “In the current climate, it is even more important that this public money is managed efficiently and effectively.”

Rhetoric for the justification of cuts is followed by Labour's response to financial pressures: further centralisation to exert control, exacerbating the targets culture and micromanagement that destroyed financial public sector controls in the first place. This is a knee-jerk response to crisis.

The secrecy of SCOTEW

The first few hearings for the new Supreme Court will be secret: not because it is a secretive organisation, but because the first cases involve spies and terrorists. How fitting that security and secrecy are the qualities which will exercise the minds of our supposedly finest jurists.

But, despite the ironic positioning of these first few cases, the content lends itself to the wider struggle that faces liberal democracy: battling increasingly dangerous threats without undermining the thin thread of consent upon which their legitimacy is based. This is a challenge that New Labour and the Bush Presidency failed to rise up to, and one that Obama has not tackled beyond symbolic sops to his base.

Thus, our judges deem their role to be the preservation of principle as they see it, even when the consequences are mad and perverse. New thinking beyond the mad constraints of the Human Rights Act is required to enhance liberty and secure freedom, safe from the madness of the self-righteous.

Bercow belongs to the vandals

What has changed? He finds that he cannot stop Ministers and the Executive destroying parliamentary privilege or announcing to the nation before the House. So Bercow decides to destroy the traditions, joining the vandals instead of fighting them.

New Labour to the core. A pity he didn't defect as he seems to have been infected with their disdain for history by osmosis.

Let us return and retain convention by repealing his appointment at the same time as New Labour's laws are repealed. Fat chance, but this Speaker is standing by whilst Gordon Brown drafts the last rites for MPs' independence.