« Sadness | Home | Cause for Optimism »
Constitutional Confusion
By Andy | June 10, 2009
Well, we’re off. With the next big idea that is, constitutional reform. But already confusion and a lack of clarity is threatening to blight the whole idea.
It is not the policy of this blog to spend hours muttering about the leadership. But everyone should be aware of ’spin’ at the moment. If there was a time when we wanted less on this nonsense than it is now. (Perhaps, we need some decent spin doctors back ….).
I don’t buy the idea that what we are seeing is a fight to death between Brownities and Blairites. This is too easy and a lazy analysis. For example, if Smtih, Blears, Flint and co were not up to their jobs, well who appointed them in the first place? Apparently Flint is “lightweight”. Even I have heard that said over years and years. Can it really be the case that No.10 has just discovered this?
Anyhow, I digress. My real worry now is that having raised expectations about constitutional reform, Brown is getting lost already.
Today’s Parliamentary statement on Constitutional Reform is here.
Leafing through this it seems a weird mish-mash of things, al cobbled together to make a programme. It is true that many of these things need addressing. And it is important that reports and reviews on things like democracy in Scotland and Wales need to be part of the debate.
But what is needed is a robust process that makes it clear how this is going to be a national debate.
Brown talks about the “Government’s Democratic Council”, but I can’t find any reference to this on government websites. It is a very grand and important sounding name. But is this to be more than just a meeting of a few Cabinet Members? We may have to start here but how does this Democratic Council move forward? Who might its members be? And how will it engage us — the poor old public.
This Council could be appointed now and could start work now. It does need to be independent from No. 10 to really have value.
I believe that it is right to seek to have a process which really looks at constitutional reform in depth. I would like to see clarity on:
Membership — Which independent voices/experts will be involved?
Learning — Are we looking at good practice from the UK and around the world?
Debate — How is the public to be involved? Can we make submissions? Will there be regional events in which we can participate? How will we use the net? IN short, how do we — the ordinary people — make our views known.
The Party —How will the Party be involved? Remember, the National Policy Forum has not discussed Iraq, or looked properly at taxation in the current crisis?
Timetable —Over what timescale are we looking?
Consensus —How do we bind people into a process and get them to commit themselves to adopting the outcomes? At the moment we look like creating something that will just be shot down in flames by everyone else.
This is a big opportunity for the government. But they really have to be seen to be genuine in their aspirations. They need to have clean hands and to present their ideas powerfully and simply enough that the public can understand what is going on.
Today’s statement made me groan. Look at this:
[The third principle of the review] … is the devolution of power and engagement of people themselves in their local communities.
Blow me down. We’ve had twelve years of this. We’ve had Green Papers, White Papers, Local Government Acts, Empowerment Green Papers and so on. We’ve also had a load of policies that have been rejected by local communities, including those on directly elected Mayors and regional Government.
The government will have to work hard to explain how — this time — they are going to get things right and implement them better.
Local government may have a lot to teach MPs, though in his interviews at the weekend Brown fell back on the need to reform local government. But here are some things to think about.
Firstly, local government cannot set its own pay — this is set by an independent panel.
Second, all local government accounts can be inspected by the public for some weeks every year. Every receipt and claim can be poured over by anyone who is mad enough to do it.
Thirdly, during the last decade all Councils have had to consider their constitutional position. Many have held local constitutional conventions, had lots of local debate and have held referenda.
At the very least government should acknowledge this work and see to build on this experience.
A bit of a rant this I know. But constitutional reform is not only a big idea but something that is needed. Already I fear that we have missed an opportunity to be seen as exciting, determined and relevant.
I really hope Gordon you prove me wrong. But at the moment I’m confused.
Topics: Constitutional Reform, Westminster Village |
June 12th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
I expect nothing now from old Jockstrap - sanctimonious old windbag. He was going to clean up politics, and so he brings back Shahid Malik, and three days later we find him up this dirty little neck in even more sleaze.
When he replied to Tony McNulty’s resignation letter he ended it by assuring McNulty that he was “sure he would soon be back in governemnt” - this was the man who pretended he lived with his parents to gain a pecuniary advantage - in other words fraud. By the way, in the world of jazz, the great Horace Silver wrote a piece called “Filthy McNasty” (TRUE: Just check the Blue Note Record catalogue). Perhaps it should be renamed “Filthy McNulty”
I doubt that Mandelson who appears now to be PM in all but name, will allow him to indulge in “constitutional reform” Andy - even if Brown had the guts to try it.