Searching for a rational explanation

Tweet

It could, of course, be the case that reducing the self-styled ‘mother of parliaments’ to complete farce is an accidental by-product of the madness of the author of the new system of voting. Clinical insanity is certainly the simplest and most obvious explanation of the thought process which would lead anyone to conclude that the most suitable way of voting in any parliament is one which excludes many MPs completely and requires the rest to spend 45 minutes shuffling along a 1km long queue every time they hold a vote. And Rees-Mogg certainly looks less than 100% compos as well as having a history of expressing strange views. The problem with that explanation is that it doesn’t explain why a majority of those taking part in the farce concluded that it was, indeed, such a brilliant idea that it should become the new norm. There could be something in the water in Westminster – but if that were to be the explanation, the Tory MPs would need to be imbibing from a different water supply than that used by members of other parties. Some of them, of course, just do whatever they’re told, either because they’re part of the government or because they want to be, but they surely can’t all be blind to the sheer idiocy of what they’ve agreed. I know that they wanted the UK to become a ‘world leader’ but I assumed they meant in terms of respect not mockery and derision.

There is however an alternative and much more sinister possibility. Deliberately excluding some members from participation in decision-taking might suit the government rather well on the whole, particularly if it differentially affects its political opponents. Excluding those MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who choose to abide by the advice of their respective governments instead of returning to London would certainly have the not insignificant side-effect of boosting the Tory majority. At a time when the PM’s actions over Cummings are causing huge disquiet on his own side, reducing the opportunities for a combination of opposition MPs and disgruntled Tories to conspire against him could be quite handy. And the derision with which the rest of the world views the system, coupled with the reluctance of MPs to be seen participating in such a farce might help in another way as well: it could make MPs less keen to call for divisions at all. If they know not only that every vote is going to cost them valuable time, but also that they’re all going to look like complete fools every time a vote is held, that might just encourage some to call for votes less frequently. (Although that could backfire if the public blamed the government rather than those calling for votes.)

It’s certainly a negation of democracy, but whether that’s due to a serious outbreak of madness in the governing party or a deliberate action to avoid scrutiny and challenge is open to interpretation. As a rule, I always tend to favour the simpler explanation, but there is something of a pattern to the avoidance of scrutiny and debate in the case of the current PM.

Who elects the government?

Tweet

There’s nothing at all unusual about the way in which politicians have reacted to the apparent rewriting of the rules by the Speaker; those who are happy with the outcome of the vote which he allowed are praising him, and those dismayed by it are criticising him.  There’s something less than entirely honest about supporting whichever process gives the ‘desired’ result, but it’s a natural tendency.

Some of the responses seem to be more than a little ‘over-the-top’ but are all the more revealing for that.  For me, the idea that allowing MPs to amend motions placed before them is some sort of ‘coup’, and ‘threatens the ability of the Government to govern’ exposes just how supine the elected legislature has become.  It also illustrates just how arcane the procedures of parliament have become - and the idea that some motions are ‘unamendable’ and that the government controls the timetable of the legislature both serve to limit the power of the legislature.

It’s worth bearing in mind that, in the UK (and the National Assembly in many ways apes this approach), we do not elect a government, only (part of) a legislature; the government is then drawn from that legislature by whoever the monarch appoints as Prime Minister (usually, but not necessarily, the leader of the largest party).  In effect, for most government activity, ministers then exercise their powers on behalf of the crown, not parliament; they only need parliament to approve their budget and any changes to the law – and a government can, in theory at least, govern for years without changing any laws if it so wishes.  What the Speaker has done has handed back some power from those we don’t directly elect to those we do directly elect, and he’s been able to do so because so much of the procedure of parliament depends on ‘precedent’ rather than on formal rules – the idea that decisions on process taken by one Speaker bind his or her successors for eternity.

More importantly, the row exposes to examination the curious relationship in the UK system between the Executive and the Legislature, and I, for one, don’t much like what I see.  There are several reasons why parliament has allowed itself to become the servant rather than the master of the government – it’s an arrangement which has suited governments of all parties, and because the Executive is drawn from the Legislature there are always plenty of ambitious legislators eyeing a role in government.  There are a lot of aspects of the US system which I don’t like, but in principle, the idea of electing the Government and the Legislature separately has a lot of attractions.  In many ways, the UK system has become much more ‘presidential’ over the years, but in an essentially undemocratic fashion.  Why not go the whole hog and separate the Executive branch completely from the Legislative branch?  We could call it something like ‘giving back control to parliament’.

Perceptions of impartiality

Tweet

It’s more than possible that the clear statement by the Speaker of the House of Commons that he will not support allowing President Trump to address both houses of parliament in Westminster Hall will be sufficient to ensure that the proposed state visit will not actually take place.  Given the massive ego of Trump, and his apparent hatred of Obama, relegating him to what he would probably see as ‘second-class’ status compared to his predecessor may well tip the balance in his own mind as to whether he will come or not.  Time will tell, but I can’t say that I’d be upset if the event were to be cancelled (diplomatic niceties of the past – which don’t necessarily apply to Trump – would probably have referred to a ‘postponement’ due to ‘diary problems’).

Bearing in mind some of the people who have been given the full works, it seems to me that there is a large element of hypocrisy from some of those opposed to according him the honour; but better to get it right this time than to repeat the error just because ‘we did it for so-and-so’.

The proposed state visit has, almost accidentally, raised the question of the extent to which the Speaker should be impartial, and whether he is entitled to express an opinion or not.  Much of the reaction seems to have more to do with whether those reacting agree with him or not; those who think he’s said the right thing praise him for being forthright whilst those who don’t attack him for failing to be impartial.  Choose another issue, and the same people would probably be arguing the opposite of what they're arguing at present.  But how impartial should he really be?

The tradition – always a ‘tradition’, never a rule – was that once appointed to the post of Speaker, the incumbent ceased to be a representative of his or her party and was elected unopposed for his or her constituency.  Like many traditions, there was some sort of justification for this in ancient history (becoming Speaker was not without some danger to the life of the incumbent), but it looks strangely outdated in the twenty-first century.  It leaves the people of the relevant constituency unable to select a representative to represent their views or to participate in the choice of a government.

It also confuses two very different things – holding a view and expressing a view.  The fact that an individual is, theoretically, barred from expressing a view on most issues doesn’t mean that he or she doesn’t hold a view.  And failing to express a view merely guarantees the perception of impartiality; it doesn’t guarantee the fact of it.  I would have thought that it’s easier to assess whether someone is really being impartial in chairing any debate if his or her views are known than if we all simply pretend that they don’t exist.

It would be nice if Speaker Bercow’s words in this case led to a serious rethink about the reality and perception of impartiality, rather than simply a knee-jerk attempt to get rid of him.  In the end, though, neither will happen – our elected representatives are, as I’ve noted before, more wedded to tradition than to efficacy when it comes to their proceedings.

Bludgeoning their lordships

Tweet

It’s not clear whether the suggestion from ‘a government source’ that the House of Lords could face abolition unless they ‘do their patriotic duty’ by voting for Brexit was a deliberate attempt to float something which could later be denied or simply a sign of incompetence.  As a rule, incompetence is the simplest solution when a government appears to contradict itself, but in this case I’m not so sure.  And, of course, the ‘source’ didn’t actually suggest that the government would move to abolish the Lords; merely that there might be an ‘overwhelming’ public demand that they do so.

It’s entirely possible that there are some in government who would want to put the frighteners on their noble lordships – well on those lords awake enough to notice, anyway.  And it could be argued that it’s not so much a threat as a prediction; given the tabloid outbursts against the ‘treacherous’ judges who dared to uphold the law over Brexit, it is wholly conceivable that those same tabloids will turn against the Lords if they dare to even suggest amendments to the Brexit Bill.  And they won’t even have the potential fear of being held in contempt of court to temper their language.

There’s something very ironic, though, about the idea that the Lords might eventually be abolished by a Conservative government, with the full support of the right-wing press, after Labour’s abject failure to deal with the problem whenever they’ve had the opportunity over the last century.  And if it comes to pass, is it even conceivable that we would see Labour rushing to defend the institution?  I’d like to think not, but these days, who knows?

At one level, it could be a case of the proverbial ‘ill wind’, if the Brexit process were to be the catalyst leading to the wholly desirable outcome of abolishing an institution which is hopelessly outdated, and which has survived for as long as it has only because our elected representatives are more wedded to tradition than to democracy.  There is a danger, though, of looking at only one part of the problem, namely that part which acts as some sort of restraint on the executive.

Most of the arguments for having a second chamber at all are to do with the failings of the first chamber.  And those problems were well illustrated by the way in which the Brexit Bill was conceived, written, and rammed through the House of Commons.  They call it ‘scrutiny’ and ‘holding the government to account’.  In reality it was neither.  Arguing that we need a second chamber to provide the scrutiny which the first fails to provide, and that it needs to be unelected because that’s the only way it can be free enough to do the job, serves only to underline how seriously deficient are the House of Commons and its processes.

I’d be delighted to see the Lords abolished, and the sooner the better.  But let’s not overlook the concurrent need for reform of the Commons to ensure that it isn’t just a rubber stamp for the government of the day.  And that reform probably needs to start with Proportional Representation.

Tradition and nostalgia

Tweet

One of the important issues exercising the minds of our MPs at the moment is the little problem that the building in which they debate is in danger of falling down around their ears.  This story appeared in a number of sources this week, outlining some of the problems and issues, of which there are many.

(As an aside, one of them is that the Palace of Westminster is apparently seriously infested by rats and mice.  Who’d have thought it?)

In most walks of life, the fact that a building which is not fit for purpose is crumbling away would be seen as an opportunity to take a long hard look at the requirements and even the location, and consider a range of options.  A legislative chamber which does not contain enough seats for all its members (even after the proposed reductions) is clearly not fit for purpose, the confrontational layout with its lines on the floor to ensure that members remain at least two sword lengths away from each other is quaint but more than a little dated, and the approach to decision-taking which involves the members standing up and walking through doors to be counted is antediluvian.

In any rational world, structural problems on this scale would be seen as an opportunity to create a legislative chamber which facilitates efficiency and the making of good legislation.  But no chance; the debate about options is limited to whether the building should be evacuated whilst it is repaired, or whether they should continue operating whilst the work is carried out around them – perhaps by making those doing the repairs work around the clock.  Tradition – in this case, working in the same way as their predecessors worked in the past – is more important to them than efficiency and effectiveness.  But then, as we’ve seen on so many other issues, looking to the past is what they do best.

Arbitrary numbers and coalition arithmetic

Tweet
I’m grateful to Glyn Davies for setting out so clearly the background to the debate over the number of MPs and their constituency boundaries.

As he points out, at the last Westminster election, the Tories committed to reducing the number from 650 to 585.  This was, of course, a wholly arbitrary number (as indeed is the current 650), but reducing the number of politicians is always a popular idea.  (Whether there are enough electors who believed that the turkeys actually would vote for Christmas to make much difference to the election is another matter entirely.)

Never to be outdone in the populism states, the Lib Dems promised to go further and cut the number to 500.  It’s a nice round number, but just as arbitrary as either 585 or 600.  And of course they never really believed at the time that they would be anywhere near having the power to implement anything that they had said.

In the event, the election was indecisive, and a coalition was formed.  In so far as one can reasonably argue that the manifesto pledges of governing parties represent some sort of mandate for government action, it’s fair to conclude that the electorate had given them a mandate to reduce the number of MPs to another arbitrary number, somewhere between 500 and 585.

So, in the coalition negotiations, they duly agreed on another entirely arbitrary number, this time selecting 600.  Perhaps they thought that was splitting the difference – if their approach to doing hard sums on economic issues is anything to go by, it’s certainly a credible theory and the only surprise would be that they didn’t suggest that 700 was half way between 500 and 585.

It could, of course, simply be another example of how the Lib Dems are a moderating influence on Conservative policies.  If they happen to moderate them even further away from Lib Dem policies, I’m sure that’s just an unfortunate accident.

In any event, it seemed there were some caveats on the whole deal which never actually got recorded in the coalition package.  The Lib Dems’ unstated caveat was that the Tories mustn’t upset them by rejecting a wholly unrelated proposal to reform the House of Lords.  And the unstated caveat of many Tories seems to have been that the changes shouldn’t actually threaten the boundaries or territorial integrity of their own constituencies.  Having equal numbers of electors is fine apparently, but only so long as it’s achieved by carving up somebody else’s seat.

I don’t entirely disagree with the point Glyn makes about the House of Lords’ intervention being a case of making an inappropriate amendment to a different proposal, although it is a point of procedure which will only really interest the anoraks.  It does however look like pretty small beer in procedural terms when compared to the sophistry of the coalition partners themselves.

When all’s said and done, enough turkeys have found their excuse not to vote for Christmas.  Not just yet anyway.

In the style of the Western Mail...

Tweet Following the submission of 40 Freedom of Information requests, one for every constituency in Wales, Borthlas can today reveal that all of Wales’ 40 MPs have been involved in a secretive ceremony involving the taking of a bizarre oath.  Within days of being elected in 2010, when all those elected had publicly pledged to serve those who elected them, every single one of Wales’ MPs had instead pledged his or her allegiance not only to the monarch, but to all her ‘heirs and successors’.

No film or pictures of this strange ceremony are thought to exist, since it was held in the offices of a shadowy character normally referred to only as the ‘Speaker’, apparently because, uniquely amongst members of the House of Commons, he is not actually allowed to speak on any issue under debate.

The bizarre garb of this ‘speaker’ is understood to include ornate robes and an elaborate wig, for no better reason that than a predecessor some centuries ago chose to dress in such an unusual fashion.  In an attempt at anonymity, the current incumbent is understood to have eschewed most of the trappings, with the exception of platform shoes, although a highly placed source told Borthlas that these have no ceremonial purpose and are merely an attempt to disguise a diminutive figure.

We have been unable to confirm whether those taking the oath did so on bended knee, or whether any ceremonial swords were used as part of the ceremony, but the speaker is known to be accompanied often by other strangely dressed attendants carrying a range of potential weapons.

A spokesman for the Taxpayers’ Alliance told Borthlas that these bizarre (note to editor – have I used the word bizarre enough times yet?) oaths clearly demonstrated that politicians had lost touch with reality and were frittering taxpayers’ money on their own grandeur.

Labour issued a strong statement condemning Plaid Cymru.  “This shows that Plaid have been hiding their real intentions from the people of Wales.  Their leader Leanne Wood should come clean on the party’s real agenda of separation and independence and clamp down on such bizarre and reprehensible behaviour by her party’s members”.

The Conservatives claimed that the fact that Labour were taking the same oath as Plaid showed that the Labour Party were secret nationalists intent on destroying the United Kingdom.

A spokesman for Nick Clegg’s office said that as far as he was aware the party didn’t have any MPs in Wales, but that if they did, their participation in the ceremony demonstrated their moderating influence on the Conservative Party.

A tight-lipped spokesperson for Plaid Cymru would only say that the party would instigate immediate disciplinary action against any of its members found to be declaring their loyalty to the sovereign instead of to the people.

I made the last one up.  Obviously.

Have they nothing better to do?

Tweet I probably shouldn’t ever be surprised at any aspect of Westminster’s government processes, but I’ll admit that the news this week that there is a potential problem with bilingual ballot papers for the police commissioner elections in two months’ time really did come as a surprise.

It’s not so much the fact that they’re late in the day thinking about it that comes as a surprise.  Much of what our own government in Cardiff does seems to treat the Welsh language as some sort of add-on extra; a simple translation job once all the real discussion has finished.  And if the Welsh Government can’t treat the Welsh language as an integral part of its activities, there is no reason to hope that the far-removed Westminster Government will ever be any better at it.

No, the part that surprised me was that it is necessary for the UK Parliament to pass an order ‘allowing’ the use of bilingual forms in Wales.  Given that bilingual forms for elections have been very much the norm in Wales for decades, and given the legislation which has been passed over the years in Westminster and Cardiff normalising the use of Welsh for official purposes, and giving the language, allegedly, equal status, why does a specific form for a specific election still need further legislation at all?

Has the Westminster Parliament really got nothing better to do than authorise what should be no more than a minor organisational detail, requiring nothing more than that relevant officials give to Welsh the equality of status which legislation claims it already has?  I find it utterly incredible that we need to seek the consent of a majority of the 650 MPs from across the UK (or however many of them bother to turn up for such a riveting agenda item) before a single form can be made available bilingually.

Lines and swords

Tweet

There is little doubt that the facilities currently ‘enjoyed’ by our elected representatives in London fall short of requirements in a number of ways.  Nor can there be any real argument about the need to provide proper facilities for anyone doing any job of work.  And however cheap any refurbishment was, there would inevitably be an outcry from the usual suspects (I’m sure that the Taxpayers’ Alliance are drafting their press release if they haven’t already issued it) against our MPs spending money ‘on themselves’.

In principle, I see no reason to oppose a reasonable level of expenditure on bringing facilities up to date and making them fit for purpose.  However, if I understand what is being proposed, it is that up to £3 billion should be spent on refurbishing the facilities and leaving them as outdated and unfit for purpose as they are currently.

Even if Cameron’s proposals to reduce the number of MPs were to be successful, there is still not enough room in the legislature for all of our legislators to sit.  Getting, and retaining, a seat for some debates depends on turning up early and being prepared to do a little pushing and shoving – of those on your own side. 

The whole chamber is designed around a confrontational approach to politics – even down to the carefully laid out lines to ensure that government and opposition are always at least two swords’ lengths apart.  And when it comes to voting, particularly on a series of complex amendments, the members have to stand up and walk around in circles, sometimes for hours.

Who in  his right mind would design a chamber for a legislature which did not contain enough space to contain all of the members?  Yet as I understand it what is being proposed is that whilst the building will be completely renewed internally, the basic design and size will remain unchanged.

It shows how easily people get sucked into ‘tradition’, and ‘the way things work around here’ that the biggest complaint raised so far seems to be that access to the bars and tearooms will be impossible during the refurbishment project.

Change of Personnel blogs on the same question here; I cannot but agree.

Faced with both opportunity and good reason – i.e. the need to do some serious work on the current facilities – to make changes which would ensure a parliamentary chamber fit for use in a 21^st century democracy, it seems as though our elected representatives will actually decide to expend huge sums of money on maintaining and updating a facility which will remain as unfit for purpose at the end as it was at the beginning.  Freshly painted lines to maintain the two swords’ separation isn't really what I'd call 'upgrading'.

Abolish their lordships

Tweet

Europe isn’t the only question on which the Tory Party is in danger of tying itself in knots; they seem to have a similar urge for self-inflicted damage when it comes to reforming the House of Lords.  And there seems to be at least a degree of overlap between those who regard reform of the Lords as a dry irrelevant constitutional issue, not to be embarked upon at a time when the economy should be the central consideration, and those who regard reform of the UK’s terms of membership of the EU as being an absolutely vital and urgent question.

It made me wonder whether they’re not both to do, at least to a degree, with the question of where power lies, or is perceived to lie.  The fear of the opponents of reforming the Lords is that an elected chamber would have a democratic legitimacy which would make it a rival to the Commons; and those who want to turn the UK into some sort of associate member, at best, of the EU are forever talking about ‘repatriating powers from Brussels’.

The common thread is that, in both cases, they want to see all power residing in one place, the Commons.  It’s no coincidence that some of them are also strong anti-devolutionists.  There’s an irony of course.  It’s certainly true that the Commons has lost a lot of power in recent decades.  But most of it hasn’t gone to the Lords, to Brussels, or to the Welsh and Scottish parliaments, however – it’s gone to the Executive.  And it’s been ceded by the legislature to the executive by the MPs themselves, who have allowed successive governments to take more and more power away from them.

The problem with the government’s proposals for reform of the Lords is that they don’t go far enough.  If we didn’t have a second chamber, I can’t believe that anyone would suggest that we needed one (there is, for instance, no serious suggestion that either Wales or Scotland need an additional chamber).  The role of the second house has evolved largely by accident, from a place where the aristocracy were represented to a place where laws can be revised or delayed (but not too much). 

All of the proposals for reform seem to take its existence as a given; they only deal with how its members are selected.  But if the Commons did its job properly, and was less beholden to the Executive, we wouldn’t need a second chamber at all.  The logical position for those who fear an elected chamber is to call for abolition, and to make the Commons more independent of the Executive.  They seem, though, to want to pretend that they have the real power rather than actually seek it.

Counting speeches

Tweet

Measuring the performance of people in roles can be a difficult task sometimes.  Lots of organisations end up targeting their managers and staff against those things which can be defined and measured rather than those which are more important but difficult to measure. 

It’s an aspect of the way targets are set in the public sector which worries me.  As an example, targeting schools on exam performance may well lead to improvement in exam results, but that doesn’t necessarily tell us whether the education has improved.  Training pupils to pass exams is not the same as educating them.  Politicians, though, love targets (or at least, they love the ones that they can hit – they tend to want to forget about the other ones).

Some of them even try to measure their own performance – or more usually, the performance of opponents – by turning to simplistic counts.  Hence, last week, we had the story about the lack of speeches made to the House of Commons by Peter Hain.  As with a lot of other things which can be measured, I’m not sure that, in itself, it tells us a great deal about how effective he is, or isn’t, as an MP.

Some MPs have become little more than problem advice centres.  It’s a useful role, but whether it’s the right role for elected politicians is another question.  Some of those try to ‘count’ their casework in order to impress us with how hard-working they are.  The late Sir Raymond Gower used to include in his election address a figure (always many thousands) for the number of letters he’d written.  (I had my first personal letter from him at the age of 11, to congratulate me on passing my cycling proficiency test.)  Certainly, people seemed to like this approach, but what did it actually tell me about his effectiveness as an MP?

Others go for the voting record, proud to tell us how many times they’ve voted out of the possible total number of opportunities.  But unless it’s an issue on which there are significant numbers of MPs voting contrary to the party whip, how useful is voting?  For most votes in the House of Commons, they might as well just have the whips present, and allow them to cast an appropriate number of votes on behalf of their parties.  A bit like the card votes at Labour conferences in the days when conferences were allowed to vote.

Yet others count the number of hours they put in.  I don’t doubt that many MPs do indeed put in very long hours (even deducting the time attending dinners, receptions etc which I’m not really convinced can be counted as ‘work’), but as a lot of people in other walks of life will understand from observation of those around them, merely putting in long hours is no guarantee of effectiveness.

The job is pretty poorly defined, and the role of individual MPs in the legislative process is largely one of doing as they are told.  There are a few who manage to carve out a role for themselves as campaigners on specific issues (Adam Price comes to mind) or as mavericks, willing to say what they think whether their party bosses like it or not (such as Paul Flynn), but they are much more the exception these days then they were a few decades ago.

Perhaps the problem is that we don’t define in enough detail what we want of them, and then like to criticise when they don’t deliver on it.  I’m not sure that the effectiveness of the contribution of a legislator is actually amenable to anything as crude as measurement; it’s more subtle than that.  When we do come to judge our elected representatives, there’s surely more to it than counting the number of speeches that they’ve made to an empty House.