« Off to the Mountains | Home | Brown’s Plans Lack a Sense of Reality »
The Hard Realities that Must Underpin Constitutional Reform
By Andy | May 28, 2009
Many in and around national politics seem to sense that this a time to press for far reaching and lasting constitutional reform. They may well be right. But reforms need to be well thought out and developed with a sense of real consensus, in the way that plans for Scottish devolution were developed.
However, we can change systems as much as we like but will we change culture and practice? Wherever we go the hard reality is that the political culture of our party (and parties) needs to change. Can our machine(s) deliver?Coming back to earth after a break in high mountains has been something of an experience. It is quite difficult for a blogger (in such circumstances) to work out where to start. But here goes.
Those who are pushing grater levels of constitutional reform are sensing that the public will need to see real and significant change if they are to have more confidence in politicians and political institutions. I think they’re right.
In the last week I’ve been fascinated at how ordinary people are interested in some key and simple ideas. Cameron’s call for more independent minded people to be engaged in party politics has really hit a chord. The problem is that those that are interested have rarely got beyond the headlines, let alone read the small print.
It’s so easy to disappoint people. Cameron’s pledge is to open up the list of approved candidates. This will do nothing to open up political office on its own. We may have some nice, new, people on the list but local parties and local machines will still be making decisions. When people realise just what has been promised they are somewhat disappointed. Cameron is using this crisis to simply have another go at his existing programme. He has courted a lot of people from different backgrounds, for example, from the BME communities. While he has succeeded in building new links with communities few individuals have made the jump to become candidates, or rather political players that are willing to be closely identified with one political creed.
Over the last couple of years I’ve had several people from the voluntary and community sector, and community ‘leaders’, ask me about getting involved in party politics. Most of these people have been courted by the Tories. What I’ve done is to just help them think through what this means. For many of them the realities are stark. The minute they become political players — as opposed to community players — everything changes. The way members of the community see you changes and the way institutions see you changes. When people realise the magnitude of what they are taking on they begin to be more cautious.
So, it seems to me that playing around with lists is simply not enough.
Enter the constitutional reform ideas of Alan Johnson and Peter Hain. I think they are right. Our current system has had its day. But there are some really difficult issues to grapple with.
Let’s take alternative vote plus, the system that these two like and that which has been used in Scotland and Wales.
Pluses
Such a change would introduce a new tier of MPs not tied to constituencies. Places would be allocated to parties according to their actual electoral performance (in terms of votes) on a national or perhaps regional basis.
Such a system might allow political parties to take greater risks with their lists than they might be able to do at a local level. Maybe this is the way we will see more BME participation. Perhaps this might be a mechanism for introducing more people from a business background? You can see how this kind of reform might even tempt Cameron, given his difficulty in getting local party associations to really change.
So, in looking at this system both johnson and Hain seem to me have focussed on things that are right and just but also practical in terms of opening up access to high political office.
Minuses
But there is one fundamental problem here. Party lists are Party lists. Do we trust the machines to really think differently? Might this backfire? Might we see more political insiders, or students wanting political careers. take advantage of such a new system?
If you want to be a little skeptical just look at the way Labour (and others) have selected by-election candidates, when the national party has more of a sway over local influence. YOu can’t exactly say that this has improved the quality of candidates, indeed, some would say that it simply fills up the Commons with lobby fodder.
Political Will
I suspect that something along the lines will have to happen sooner rather than later. But for those of us who really want to see change, the key issues remain the same.
It is our political cultures that need to change. We need political machines that are equipped to undertake a radically different job. In Chartist recently Neale Lawson asked whether the Labour Machine needed dismantling. I think the answer is a resounding yes. It is more of a yes when looking at new systems.
The anti change lobby
Of course, within Labour, this electoral reform debate comes to the fore every ten years or so. There are those who determinedly stick to first past the post. The arguments between the two camps are vicious, which might explain why Brown has been so quiet over the last week.
Johnson, Hain and others now really have to push home some hard truths. Let’s look at the first-past-the-post argument. They make two points.
Firstly, alternative votes will mean we will probably never have a Labour government with a clear mandate for a proper Labour/socialist programme.
Secondly, they worry about the accountability of coalitions. People are elected on manifestos. The coalition allows them to simply ditch things. They can say what they want at election time knowing full well tat they may never have to face the danger of implementation.
On the first count it is now very unclear what an ongoing Labour government will mean for Britain. What its its USP? As politics continues to cement at the centre how do we distinguish the offer from the individual parties? Clan-ish loyalty is something that is increasingly difficult to play to and, probably, has little to do with the politics of the future. Invoking the Tories as something of a modern day bogey person also misses the point.
I believe that an alternative vote system — and the coalition politics that might result will mean that parties will have to concentrate harder on differentiating themselves from the rest. What do they stand for? Who do they stand for? These seem to me to be fundamental issues questions that Labour needs to answer. They will be under more pressure to do so under a different system.
On the second count I think we have to reflect on lasting constitutional change. Devolution in Scotland and Wales is not without its problems. But these governments re different, have different priorities and seek to address common problems in distinctly different ways. This is real devolution. These changes were only achieved by working in coalition albeit coalition out of government.
An Opportunity for Brown
Ironically the constitutional reform debate offers Brown an opportunity to move foreword. He can’t move any quicker on remuneration and allowances. We will have to wait for the work of the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner for that, and rightly so. Remuneration should not be the sole preserve of Parliament or even the government.
But constitutional reform is the preserve of government and the Commons. Our political representatives would do themselves a power of good if they were seen to be genuinely setting out to review the big questions about how we are governed. They don’t have to solve things by the autumn but they should be well into a debate by them. We should expect General Election manifestos to be addressing constitutional change.
The Fall and Fall of the Political Class
But does the political class really get it? I worry that they don’t. I worry that they think this will all blow over and, to some extent, maybe it will. Until the next crisis — which will come sooner rather than later.
Our political elite (both front and back of house) have not quite understand how sick the public is with their new establishment. Until they can really show that they recognise the need for change there will be no realignment in public opinion that will allow us to move foreword.
These are hard sentiments. But remember, Labour’s National Policy Forum (let alone its membership) has not been allowed to debate Iraq and is now not being allowed to look at economic policy and taxation. This is unacceptable in a modern, collective, party.
Can Brown Deliver?
So, Johnson and Hain are right to move hard on this reform agenda. But where is Brown? The silence from the PM and his loyal troops is quite disturbing as night after night Cameron and now Clegg have the airwaves to themselves.
My guess is that the machine simply cannot come to terms with a debate about this wide ranging reforms inside of the Party, let alone countenance the notion of leading a national debate and review.
But this is the big challenge for contemporary leaders.
They have to prove that they are big enough to lead. It is nowhere near clear that they are.
So there we are my first attempt to think through this stuff. It’s probably very flawed and I reserve the right to change my mind by the weekend. But be clear. This is not a sign of weakness or wishy washiness. It is the process of political reappraisal. This should not just be left to individuals!
Topics: Westminster Village |
