Don’t Clegg and Cameron look the happy couple? Who would have realised that only weeks ago, these two men were political enemies? It’s enough to make you weep. And swear. And throw things at the screen. But anyway, that’s besides the point. The point is, they have brought with them the “new” politics – and what a load of old codswallop it is.
When David cameron and Nick Clegg talked of the new politics, they talked about reducing the size of the state, of giving power back to people, or creating, in Cameron’s terms, the “Big Society”. So, as I understand it, they were keen to decentralise power away from the state and into other people’s hands.
Err, except they haven’t. All this talk of constitutional reform is garbage. It does nothing to do this. Every measure is actually entrenching power rather than loosening grip. Funny how things change when you win power, isn’t it? So anyway, here are the measures, in brief, with the explanations to follow:
- Instituting a referendum on AV for the House of Commons;
- Appointing peers to the Lords to reflect the vote at the last General Election;
- Changing the law so that a motion to dissolve Parliament needs 55% to win, rather than a simple majority;
- Introducing fixed term Parliaments;
- Changing the rules of the Conservatives’ 1922 Committee so that frontbenchers get a vote;
- Allowing Government parties access to Short money.
So let’s just take a closer look at those…
Referendum on AV
AV stands for Alternative Vote. It’s worth noting that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats were in favour of this system during the General Election campaign. It is not a proportional system (not that I care – I don’t believe in PR as a form of effective government, but that’s another matter right now), and so it’s not really what the Liberal Democrats want. In fact, a crude version of AV (ie. not AV+) would produce only a very modest change in the outcome of most elections, but still, that’s what Nick Clegg and David Cameron are going to give us a referendum on. Even better, the Conservative Party will campaign against it! Well, isn’t it good to know that our Prime Minister is going to give us a vote on electoral reform, whilst at the same time telling us to stick it?
Lords Reform
We’ve not really heard much about reform of the House of Lords. It doesn’t seem to be a huge priority on that basis, but what we have been told is that the coalition government plan on appointing a number of Lords so that the make-up of the second chamber is reflective of the proportion of the vote at the General Election just gone. Now, if you remember, Gordon Brown as the outgoing Primer Minister is allowed to appoint a number himself, and Labour already have more Lords than any other party. Thus, the coalition government will have to appoint over a hundred Lords in order to do this. I thought we were wanting to elect them these days (again, I’m not so worried about that, but anyhow…)? Furthermore, appointing the House in this way is actually a clouded attempt at gerrymandering to get legislation through the second chamber. People will only be appointed on the basis that they will support legislation. You may as well just abolish the chamber if you’re going to abuse it like that!
Dissolving Parliament and Fixed Term Parliaments
Clever stuff, this. A vote of no confidence can pass with a simple majority, but a motion to dissolve Parliament would only pass with a vote with a 55% – 45% majority. Why is this important? Oh, it just so happens that this minor change means that the Conservative Party could rule as a minority government, and as long as they all stick together, can’t be booted out by a vote of no confidence, even though the other parties could block every piece of legislation they bring to the House. Oh, and because we have a fixed term Parliament, we’re stuck with a lame duck Government. Great. More gerrymandering.
1922 Committee
The 1922 Committee is a Conservative backbench committee. See that important word? Oh, no, not “committee”, but “backbench”. Currently, those on the frontbench can’t votein the 1922 Committee. David Cameron wants to change the rules so that the frontbench can vote. It just so happens that such a move would increase his power over the committee…
Short Money
The Government always has an advantage over the opposition, since it has almost unlimited resources for research and policy-making through the very fact that it is the Government. When you’re in opposition, it’s much harder to undertake the same reasearch because you have less money and manpower. Short money goes to the opposition to redress the balance somewhat. Only thing is, the Liberal Democrats, despite being in coalition government with the Tories, have decided they should get some. Err, right. That, I believe, is theft. Except they know that, so they want to change the rules so they are allowed to. Hmm.
So anyway, let’s recap how this goes. The Liberal Democrats and the Tories, in their coalition Government, will:
- Give power to the voters! Referendum on AV! Give voters a bigger say – but we’ll campaign against it, because we don’t actually want it!
- Reform the House of Lords! Give the second chamber credibility – by appointing party loyalists who will vote our legislation through! We won’t bother to elect them!
- Give more power to Parliament! Except we’ll remove the power to dissolve Parliament so we can cling on to power like Communists clinging on to the last bricks of the Berlin Wall!
- Take power away from the Prime Minister! No more second-guessing election dates! But it means I can stick it out for five years, whatever happens, however much you hate me!
- Crush the backbenchers! Pesky, noisy twerps!
- Steal money from the opposition! We need it for ourselves!
Is it just me, or was the Old Politics better? No wonder they were laughing so much in the press conference. It’s clearly easier to be a Liberal outside of Government. Now, it’s all about how much power they can cling on to.
Picture: Crown Copyright, taken at the first joint press conference.