Small reforms can have a big impact. The proposal to set up a business committee of the House of Commons to allow MPs to decide what the Commons debates, rather than the government, may sound of interest only to parliamentary anoraks. But it is an important reform which deserves support when the vote comes before the Commons next Monday 22 February.
The victory over the Tories on voting reform decided in the Constitutional bill vote earlier this month meant that Labour crossed the Rubicon of supporting a new method of electing MPs.
As with Progress’s work on primaries, we are witnessing a comprehensive package of reform proposals for the way politics is done in Britain.
Compared to other moments when a period of Labour government came to the end of a parliament and a period of power as in 1951, 1970 or 1979, there is an enthusiasm for new thinking and for rejecting the stultifying style of Labour traditionalism.
Allowing MPs to decide on Commons business opens up possibilities for better legislation closer to people’s priorities.
Like the Royal Navy at the Battle of Jutland, it is clear that there is something wrong with that other adornment of British history, the House of Commons.
Blaming it on whips is silly. As Professor Philip Cowley has shown there have been more sustained rebellions against the Labour government than at any time in Labour’s history.
Far from delivering steamroller majorities to Blair and Brown, Labour whips live in terror of losing key votes.
The real culprits are the voters, bless ’em. They provided the executive with such thumping majorities in 1997, 2001 and 2005 that it has not had to worry about parliament.
We will see what the next election brings, but if there is a small or perhaps no one-party majority for the government, the Commons will come back to life.
The prime minister will have to do the House the courtesy of being present and, who knows, perhaps there will be a reporter in the press gallery or members’ lobby – but don’t hold your breath.
As we can now see the new controllers of MPs and their work are determined in the wake of the expenses scandal to create a Commons of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. MPs who do not have private wealth will not be permitted to share a family life with spouses and children in both London and the constituency. MPs will spend much time trying to satisfy their new overseers and will have less time to be parliamentarians.
So voting for a business affairs committee is a first modest step to restoring some authority to the Commons. It will not do away with the need for whips. Since Cicero’s day, party management of a legislature is essential. Just read Robert Caro’s ‘Master of the Senate’ on how Lyndon Johnson elevated party and legislator managerialism to new heights.
So the Tadpoles and Tapers will still find employment.
A new business affairs committee will still require a majority and minority. MPs who not know the specialities, competences or work-rate of colleagues will require guidance before voting on the committee’s composition.
Such a committee will not necessarily reduce legislation. Researching hate crime recently, I was surprised to find that there are around 80,000 hate crime prosecutions a year – just ask Nick Griffin. They arise from recent and welcome legislation and it is astonishing to hear Lib Dem spokesmen condemn new laws which protect people from racist, xenophobic, antisemitic or homophobic abuse.
We would all like to ‘nudge’ people to behave better. But no amount of nudging made us stop smoking in public places, use seatbelts, drive slowly or stop racist chants at football matches. Law is needed and we shall see if the Commons can make better law. The business affairs committee is a useful first step to making the Commons work better and producing better law. It deserves support.