baldysblog.co.uk

This is a deathly combination, a newspaper, The Independent fighting for survival and a political party, the LibDems knowing that they haven’t made the progress that they should have over the past 12-18 months, joining in a campaign of “Parliamentary Reform.

The Editorial and links to associated articles including Mr Clegg’s can be found here- http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-a-powerful-case-to-answer-on-the-restoration-of-power-1821274.html

Pure Electioneering

The Liberal Democrats have set up a web site called – http://www.takebackpower.org/ which if you look down at the bottom credits, in very small print will make you realise that this is a LibDem web site and not as it seeks to purport, a radical independent take on British politics. Suddenly and very much “At a Rush”, Mr Clegg has amazing reforms propose in the short time available before this Parliament ends wants to do “many great things”, sorry but I am not convinced and neither should anybody else be, it is a typical “wet” approach from a rather wet leadership.

However and to be fair, being the Leader of the LibDems must be like herding cats, pushing wet string uphill and could drive you to drink, it is not a job for a serious politician who expects “power” any-time soon.

Parliamentary Reform

Whilst it is obvious that we need Parliamentary reforms, I’m afraid that Mr Clegg and many others repeat the same mistake time and again by both “Playing to the Gallery” and promoting their own pet projects out of self interest rather than looking at what the Nation needs first and foremost.

The classic cases being Labour and Devolution, designed only to ‘cement’ their power bases in Scotland and Wales although in the event, with some unexpected outcomes for them. Since 1997, the two noticeable wastes of Parliamentary Time were the Fox Hunting legislation clearly designed with stirring up “class envy and spite” in the minds of the electorate plus the Reform of the Lords.

Why reform what is just the “Village Elders”, I have not the slightest idea and it is not valid until the place where all power resides, the Commons is looked at and particularly Prime-ministerial Patronage and the operation of the Royal Prerogatives. We have dealt with an unelected Monarch holding such powers many generations ago. However, whether effectively is open to considerable debate because the way in which it was dealt with was merely to pass the “Monarch’s Prerogatives” over to the Prime Minister of the day so we have an “elected King or Queen” and is that any better ?

The Separation of Powers

But it goes much further, the Speaker of the House is also known as the “First Commoner” because he was the interface between the Legislature (Parliament) and the Executive – the Monarch. Today the “King” (PM) and his Courtiers (Cabinet), sprawl all over the Treasury Benches so clearly we need to look at the Separation of Power. There will be many implications to this not which the least is, just what is a Speaker for in these times, Shop Steward for MPs or a Toady for the Government ? In the current incumbent Bercow and the previous one Martin, no apparent decision has been made either way.

David Cameron has promised to cut the number of MPs by 10 percent which is a start but we are massively over governed at the national level so the cull should really be down to between 300-400 but not quite so simple. The redrawn boundaries are likely to increase voter frustration in areas of “safe seats” for one party or another where a ‘believer’ in another party has their vote ‘wasted’. The answer might be a variation on a PR transferable vote basis so two Members are returned in which case should we have only 200 constituencies ?

Yes reforms are needed but let us not just rearrange the deck chairs and hasten slowly to minimise “The Law of Unintended Consequences”, we want “better governance” not just “different”.

Reality…

The LibDem proposals do not start from the basic problems, they start from “their party solutions”. We need a wide ranging debate that goes way beyond anything that ANY political party would of themselves propose.

Change for change sake is pointless, in thought but initially not in action, we need to think through a broad range of possibilities, imagine the ‘impossible’ as a hypothesis. We also need to see things in a “context”. Why for example when the “King and his Courtiers” have sat inside the House of Commons for generations, is it now a problem ?

Is it the rise of the ‘sycophantic professional politician’ who sees this a a Career rather than a Vocation to Serve ? Is it that the electorate demands more ?

Test Lab Experimentation

When it comes to a proper “Separation of Powers”, we could take the US model which grew from British legislation and give it a theoretical test drive in a British context. The problem with all political parties is that their views are purely ‘internal’ when it comes to defining the “problems” and Constitutional Reform is far too important to be approached in such fashion. It has been said that “War is too important to be left to the Generals” and if so, “Constitutional Reforms are too important to be left to Politicians.”

It is over and above individual parties because it defines the relationship between the Citizen and the State not “Party HQ”. Nick Clegg knows full well that with only 70 days maximum left in this Parliament, there is absolutely no chance of even defining and agreeing issues between all interested parties, let alone passing legislation, this is just a failed party Leader “electioneering” pure and simple whilst trying to look vaguely “relevant” – NULL Points Cleggy .

We need a public debate first, dig the soil, plant the seeds, tend them and hopefully they will grow. Boris Johnson ( The Mayor of London), sometime back made a very good point about using public works to stimulate the economy, he talked about projects being “shovel ready”, in the broadest sense being up and ready to start, Constitutional reform has yet to reach that point.