The Bewilderness

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.

Commons reform: constitutional fail

Spin in haste, repent at leisure. It was clear that Brown's proposal for a new quango limiting parliamentary sovereignty would run into trouble. Thank god for Malcolm Jack, Clerk of the House of Commons, to point out the crappy consequences of further constitutional vandalism. The destruction of parliamentary privilege and curbing of free speech would achieve by default what monarchs were unable to. Was this what the executive hoped to slide in under the guise of reform?

We know that New Labour slime are devious enough to attempt the opposite of what the public demand. Under the camouflage of accountability and transparency, they would neuter the Commons for good and instill executive advantage in perpetuity. What care they for free speech or independent scrutiny.

Here's hoping that further voices raised will halt ill-thought reforms designed to bolster Brown's poll ratings: the very short-term consequences that have disfigured Boards up and down the land.

We are in the early stages of a constitutional crisis

Is this the most damaging week of a Labour government ever? These crises appear to generate their own heat and light in publicity, a bright forge obscuring the actual machinations of the players. Tonight, after the energy level has risen ever higher in the day prior to the elections, we have seen a new series of resignations designed to damage the standing and authority of one Gordon Brown. They have done so. Yet, it is very difficult to write this man off: protected as he is by the rules of the Labour party governing leader elections and the strong authority of his office.

Like a limpet, it will be difficult to prise his fingers from power. Yet, Gordon Brown's woes obscure the wider flaws of the Labour party and hide the potential possibility of a constitutional crisis. Part of the unpopularity of the Prime Minister does not just reside in his political decrepitude, but rests on his inauguration. It is the role of party that the public finds insufferable. By circulating a letter that demands the resignation of Brown, the Parliamentary Labour Party are demonstrating their usurpation of the public will. Tired of this government and parliament of immoral mediocrities, all polls show the public wants a clean break. The appointment of a new leader will confirm that Labour prizes party and faction above the right of the public to have a say over who rules them.

There is also the scenario where Brown falls on his sword, but why should Labour remain in power. It is not their constitutional right to hold power in this situation, and the Head of State would be within her rights to call another leader with a view to hastening dissolution. Labour should be taught a lesson that a majority is there to be nurtured and the leader is not necessarily the best candidate for Prime Minister. If Brown falls and there is no replacement in the wings, then Parliament should be dissolved. The constitutional crisis already exists as a dysfunctional party machine could deny Britain the leadership required during this difficult time and precipitating the market crisis that all politicians wished to avoid.  

Westminster tends to control, and more Westminster leads to total control

The hype over Cameron's trailed reforms on the House of Commons was slightly punctured tonight after his reforms were taken up by Jack Straw, Minister of Justice, who welcomed a valuable contribution to cross-party discussions on constitutional change. In a biased article that then lists Tory expenses, Straw downplayed some of the more radical elements and stated that Cameron's proposals were already being considered by Labour.

Given the partisan nature of this Parliament, one can view this as a neutering of Cameron's speech, spoiling the headlines with a narrative wresting reform back to the government.

Straw welcomed Cameron's article as a contribution to the debate. The government does not agree with everything the Tory leader said, but Straw believes that the cross-party talks could reach agreement on some aspects of parliamentary reform within the next few months, such as:

• Strengthening Commons select committees. Cameron said the whips should lose the power to choose the members and chairs of select committees. Straw believes there is scope for reform in this area.

• Petitions. Cameron said that if the organisers of a petition collected enough support, they should be able to get their idea debated in the Commons. Straw looked into this idea when he was leader of the Commons and he is interested in taking it forward.

• Scrutinising legislation. Cameron criticised the way every bill is "guillotined", meaning the time set aside for debate is limited in advance. Straw believes that the creation of a Commons business committee could give the Commons more say over timetabling issues.

The latest prism is the race for reform, though media pressures for leadership on constitutional debate will dissipate as debates dwell on the detail. Cameron wished to seize the narrative and direct the arguments towards democratisation, not PR. In this, he has succeeded, with fixed term parliaments and recall mechanisms entering the fray. It is to the Guardian's disadvantage that they remain wedded to Labour, downplaying the other aspects of his speech, since reform is only worthwhile if it comes from the Left.

The BBC joins in the criticism with the Liberal Democrats providing soundbites, alarmed that their role of kingmaker may be receding as they are outflanked by the other parties. Galling that the changes leave their ideas far behind.

This is a debate, not a race, with contours set by the media timetable. All governments prove less radical, and Cameron must show that the faux-Acton principle that Westminster tends to control is abolished.

 .

Break with the mould or remain a cypher-politician

Andrew Sparrow in the Grauniad gives some more flesh on parts of the Cameron interview that I forgot or left out yesterday. I had forgotten the resolution to give more free votes on non-menifesto commitments but, as James Forsyth relates in Coffee House, the Tory leader gets it, on Europe and rebalancing Parliament versus the executive.:

He went on: "I think that behind the anger about expenses, there's also a deeper concern about the whole of the way our politics and our parliament works. People feel, 'hold on, I elect these MPs, they go to parliament'. They're then told by the whips how to vote, rather than voting according to their conscience. Parliament passes far too many laws, scrutinises them appallingly badly. The select committees are chaired by people who've been placed there by the whips and the prime minister rather than elected. You know they've given power to the judges, on the one hand, and Europe on the other and the whole thing, frankly, is not in my control. That's what people, I think, are angry about. They want more control over their politics and their politicians."

This is not a revelatory moment where all reformers can sing, dance and consider their job done. It is a positive first step, and reinforces the suspicion that Cemron will re-open the book on Europe. Follow Labour's route and become a cypher politician or start returning power to us.

PR is now a Labour fix for the permanent government

What a surprise that Labour wishes to fix the system to ensure that they have some power after producing the Worst Government Ever bar Lord North. The call by Alan Johnson for a PR referendum alongside the next general election and Ed Miliband's voice for reform count as self-serving tripe:

Mr Miliband told the Guardian: "Out of a set of terrible issues, this is a moment for big reform and government must take advantage of it.

"We need a more pluralistic political system where power is shared in different ways."

Note that when a Labour Minister talks about a pluralistic political system, they mean hanging on to power by their fingertips, by resurrecting that old progressive alliance. For government, read Labour.

Labour have lost their legitimacy and riding the coattails of a reform programme to create a permanent government of themselves is the worst outcome. Perhaps such notions may have been welcomed if they had cross-party support but this is an obvious partisan move and we are tired of crap politicking from the Left. You will go away, with the boot of the electorate up your arse.

Like lampreys, they refuse to let go of the taxpayer's teat.

UPDATE: There will be some sympathy for proportional representation within New Labour. But the championing of reform by those untainted by the expenses scandal demonstrates that a salvage operation is uppermost in their minds. The confluence of personnel and partisan action by the government on this issue renders an early election more urgent.

Not yet the revolution

Given the revelations that we have seen so far, the tumbrils remain curiously empty. Their mentality, secured by the Westminster bubble, is found wanting. Although the damage and continually stressful atmosphere, caused by the 'drip drip' feed of scandal, is a cause of complaint, the parties have not clarified who stays and who goes.

The first party that engages in a wholesale purge of the most egregious elements will obtain win the race to appear clean in the public's eyes. Anger and apathy are interleaved in the latest polls, as voters, turned off by a political class, opt for the fringe, the anti-political stance or staying away entirely. Curiously, the lower the turnout, the better for Labour. The incumbent party also benefits, in the short-term, from scandals that obscure its economic disaster.

We have heard that this counts as a very British revolution since the resignation of Speaker Martin. We know that the scandal engulfing the political class provides an opportunity in the medium term to demand reform of Parliament. Reform takes different forms for different people: Labour opt for proportional representation, in order to create a permanent progressive front, allying with the Liberal Democrats and ensuring their dominance for another thirteen years; the Liberal Democrats opt for the same, on the grounds that they will be kingmakers; and the Tories enjoy fervent creativity on remodelling Parliament and bringing back democratic accountability at both local and national level.

We know that the course of constitutional reform and civic nationalism, charted by the progressives from the late nineteen-eighties, is designed to perpetuate the dominance of party politics and a centre-left coalition. Political calculation utilises the power of accurate representation to reduce democratc choice and acountability. From Charter 88, we gained New Labour. This is not the road to reform.

Therefore, until we obtain a new Parliament and a new government, tinkering with the reform agenda beyond expenses, could be used as a blind by Brown to take changes that would prevent 'chaos' in government, his new codeword for a Tory government. With the rhetoric of apocalypse, he tills creative soil for extra-constitutional action.