What a difference a week makes. In the past few days the issue of constitutional reform has gone from being a minority interest for academics and political activists to being the hottest political topic, with party leaders falling over themselves to bring forward new initiatives. With his speech yesterday to the Open University, David Cameron has arguably stolen the political moment, even leading one excitable journalist to claim that it was his ‘yes we can’ moment.
Well, perhaps. The speech and article in the Guardian was certainly a masterstroke of public relations. It pressed the buttons of progressive Conservatives with its promise to give more power to citizens and reduce central government bureaucracy (although has a politician ever promised more bureaucracy? “I stand here today and promise you more pencil-pushers…”). He also reached out to more independent thinkers, promising MPs more influence over legislation and the possibility of more free votes. Finally, he tipped a wink to the Daily Mail by railing against the EU and unaccountable quangos.
So far so good and Cameron deserves praise for showing an active interest in reform. His speech should also act as a jolt for a Labour government that has found itself uncertain about a new approach to enhancing people power. Despite Gordon Brown making reform of the state a priority and addressing many issues in his ‘Governance of Britain’ document, the government is still in a state of flux with regard to reforming the House of Lords, reforming Whitehall and giving local authorities real fiscal power. To reinvigorate itself and give it a chance of reconnecting with the public, it has to remove itself from this torpor.
There are plenty of holes to pick in Cameron’s speech, not least the lack of any roadmap setting out how his reforms will happen and how they will be paid for. He promises more freedom for local councils but doesn’t begin to address how to reform the outdated and unfair system of local government finance. He promises to scrap regional government without saying how under a Conservative government cross-regional decisions on housing, transport and regeneration will be decided and funded. Most interestingly, he does not guarantee that he will stick to Labour’s plans to increase funding to local government above inflation.
It is apparent moreover that many of his ideas smack of the kind of sofa-driven eye-catching initiates that he criticises as being part of the old No.10 regime. Ideas such as texting voters updates on the progress of legislation belong in the drawer marked ‘wacky think tank ideas saved for a rainy day’. His promise that councils can have a ‘general power of competence’ is a re-hashed version of the already existing power of well-being.
It was however a brave and bold speech and one that has set the tone of this week’s debate. It would be refreshing for the prime minister to respond by accepting that the UK remains one of the most centralised states in Europe and promising a fully reformed House of Lords based on ensuring regional representation; further powers for councils to direct health and policing priorities and reform of the council tax and a minimisation of unnecessary quangos. The rules of the game have changed this week: now there is an appetite for real and radical change to the way we interact with the state. Labour has one last opportunity to take the lead.
How many last opportunities do you need ? I’ve stopped counting. I should just leave quietly and hope no-one notices. Well done, by the way, for choosing Mr Brown – he’s galvanised public opinion about the Labour Party… against, obviously.
Will no one point out the gadarene nature of this headlong rush towards so called political reform?
An elected House of Lords would be profoundly ANTI democratic, undermining the sovereignty of the people as expressed through our House of Commons. If you want real reform then abolish the second chamber.
Proportional representation (which of the many competing systems by the way?) would remove power from the electorate and place the process of forming a government into the hands of a few senior members of political parties in secret negotiations.
Fixed term Parliaments will give us what they have in the US: the 100 days culture. US Presidents have to initiate everything in their first 100 days or it won’t be done in time for the start of the next election campaign two years later. The second half of a parliament is spent campaigning for the election while the executive is hamstrung for two years.
You can bet that those who now say the UK is over centralised would, post decentralisation, elbow their way to the front of the mob to pillory any government that hasn’t managed to make the world a perfect place.
Decentralise the power by all means; just do it after you’ve decentralised the blame and trained the press not to hound Ministers. But you’ll have to move to La La land first.