Politics

John Bercow lecture on Parliamentary reform at the University of Bedfordshire

This year the University of Bedfordshire has begun a series of public policy lectures with prominent invited speakers. I presume that driving this is the influence of the newish vice chancellor former Labour MP and government minister Bill Rammell.

Last month the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, spoke about parliamentary reform. He talked about how the House of Commons had seen a revival in recent years and highlighted the importance of the Parliamentary Committee on Banking Reform.

You can watch the lecture in the video below. You might want to skip the introductory stuff. The lecture doesn’t really get going until 13 minutes in.

Bercow argues that the expenses scandal was an “adapt or die moment” for the Commons. Since that moment three things have happened that created the conditions for a revival in the importance of the Commons as an institution:

  1. The 2010 package of procedural reforms which he argues are the most significant reform since the Parliament Act of 1911.
  2. The new intake of MPs after the 2010 election who, across all parties, are less prepared to act merely as lobby fodder.
  3. The creation of the Coalition Government.

These three things form the background to an “under-recognised revolution”. The key features of which are:

  • Ministers spending more time in the Commons being held to account, especially through the use of the Urgent Question.
  • The democratisation of select committees — no longer under the control of the whips.
  • And the commons itself having greater control over the parliamentary timetable through the Backbench Business Committee.

On the Parliamentary Committee on Banking Reform, Bercow says this has broken new ground in working methods. It provides a template for parliament to grapple with future difficult issues. He also notes that this template, combined with the role of the Backbench Business Committee, means that now the Commons doesn’t have to wait for the Government to set up such an enquiry, it can do so itself.

 13th June 2013   4:34 pm   0  Tags Politics 

The South Shields by-election and Lazy Labour

Ballot papersBack in April I’d written here about the inevitability of the Labour Party winning the South Shields by-election using it as an illustration of how the phenomenon of the safe seat corrupts our politics.

I didn’t write anything in reaction to the result last month as it went as expected. However, I did find a couple of pieces of commentary on the result that I thought backed up what I was saying and I think it is worth using them to restate the case.

There was this piece on The Guardian’s Northerner Blog which highlighted the by default nature of Labour’s victory;

“Having spent three days in South Shields since David Miliband announced he was off to New York, I’d say that a sizeable proportion of the population wants a change. When I went out door knocking with her last week on the Harton estate, almost everyone we called on promised her their vote. When I lingered behind to ask why, every single one began with: ‘Because we always do.’…..Without these tribal voters, Labour would have been in serious difficulty.”

If there is a sizeable minority looking for change, in such a “one party state”, who can they vote for? UKIP’s success as the main vehicle for the protest vote, which I think slightly exceeded expectations, is one answer. But without genuine party competition these people are disenfranchised. This is how safe seats corrupt.

This point was reinforced by a post I came across on the Labour List blog. In”We need to talk about South Shields” the author bemoans the lack of campaigning activity by Labour in the seat prior to the election, criticises David Milliband for not doing something about it, and argues that is example of “Lazy Labour”. Apparently;

“Several very reliable sources have told me that the voter contact rate (the percentage of people in the constituency for whom the party has a record of voting preference) in the constituency was as low as 0.2% – or roughly 100 people. That’s effectively zero, and enough to suggest that little or no canvassing had ever been done in the seat.”

While that is pretty shocking for even the safest of safe seats — I am not all that surprised. And I find the authors dismay at this situation a little naive. Where is the incentive for Labour activists to work hard every year canvassing and doing other activities when they know that whatever happens Labour are going to win the seat?

I have my issues with David Miliband, but they primarily relate to foreign policy. I’ve never heard any suggestion that he was a particularly poor constituency MP. Where was the incentive for Miliband to spend time and energy building a top notch campaign machine when he knew that his re-election was guaranteed? His energies would be much better spent elsewhere. A seat like South Shields is the ideal kind of constituency for someone with aspirations to lead the Labour Party. Just like Blair’s was in Sedgefield. (Labour have held that seat since 1935.)

While “laziness” of this kind in an MP, of whatever party, in a marginal seat is suicidal — in a seat as safe as South Shields I’d call it a proper allocation of resources. Criticism of individual politicians, or of party machinery, misses the point. Choices such as these are driven by the outcomes of our electoral system. It is first past the post that is at fault.

Featured on Liberal Democrat Voice

 11th June 2013   4:30 pm   3  Tags Politics 

My preview of the June 2013 meeting of the English Council

Liberal Democrats LogoMy preview of the June 2013 meeting of the Liberal Democrat’s English Council was posted on Liberal Democrat Voice last Friday.

The English Council is the governing body of the Liberal Democrats in England and meets twice a year to consider matters of importance to the English Party.

The agenda for this meeting was rather light so I have to be honest and say that I struggled to make the post very interesting. However, if any party member has some feedback that they’d like to give me to pass on to the meeting you contact me using the form on my website.

 9th June 2013   9:15 pm   0  Tags Politics 

Nick Robinson on the Government versus the BBC

BBCmarconi-atypeI’ve just finished listening to Nick Robinson’s BBC Radio 4 series ‘Battle for the Airways’ which looks at the history of relations between the government and the BBC.

The eight 15 minute programs each look in turn at particular incidences of conflict since the founding of the corporation, taking in Suez and the Falklands, up until the present day.

There is a lot of value in it. Some great archive footage and interviews with key players. And it doesn’t tell a simplistic story of nasty politicians attempting to censor and restrict the freedom of courageous journalists either. It is noticeable that often the conflicts are caused or fuelled by poor journalistic judgement.

Also, given the potential for interference, I was struck by how restrained politicians in the past have often been.

One of the more formidable early opponents of the BBC’s independence was Winston Churchill. Episode 2 includes a wonderfully caustic and sarcasm laden recorded extract from a critical speech he made. But Churchill had a point. It was the case that in the Thirties his anti-appeasement views, and those of other critics of the foreign policy of the time, were being deliberately kept off the airways.

I noticed in Episode 6 that even Margaret Thatcher, who you might imagine being the most combative critic, goes some way to moderate her criticism –- “some of the programs, I don’t say all” –- of aspects of the BBC’s reporting of the Falklands conflict.

Robinson’s emphasis in this series is on conflict. It is essentially a collection of snapshots of “battles”. Yet despite this it left me feeling optimistic.

I think you have to accept that to a certain extent the BBC will always work within broad parameters set by an essentially establishment outlook. It is after all the British Broadcasting Corporation established by Royal Charter. It is also true that the BBC’s independence seems to have been as often preserved by skilfully bending to pressure as it has been by resisting it.

Yet in accepting those things, and after listening to the story of these rows and clashes, I can’t help but conclude that the relationship overall between the Government and politicians and the BBC has been one that has worked and been healthy. The really damaging conflicts have occurred mostly at times of war, particularly the more controversial wars, when the stakes have been so much higher.

Outside of those times it has been less a battle for the airways — more taking pot-shots and the occasional skirmish. The boundaries between broadcasters and politicians have largely been established and accepted by all sides, and seems to have largely worked in the public interest. I am not convinced the same be said of the print media.

Robinson’s series highlights the conflicts – but for me the story is one of success. Indeed, it could have been so much worse.

Berlusconi anyone?

 11th May 2013   1:01 pm   0  Tags Politics 

Parliamentary constituencies in The Chilterns

This is a reference post listing the UK parliamentary constituencies that cover the area of England known as ‘The Chilterns’ with details of the current MP and their party.

A while ago I noted this post which pointed out the correlation between which political parties people vote for and the geology of an area. So if you live where there is chalk you are likely to have a Conservative MP. It turns out that this is largely true.

This got me thinking about the nature of the political representation of the chalk hills that surround where I live — the Chiltern Hills. I wondered who were the MPs who had constituencies that covered The Chilterns and so would have an interest in its conservation.

After a bit of research I came up with the following list which I make available in case anyone finds it useful:

Constituency Current MP Party
Hitchin and Harpenden Peter Lilley Conservative
Mid Bedfordshire Nadine Dorries Conservative
Luton North Kelvin Hopkins Labour
Luton South Gavin Shuker Labour
South West Bedfordshire Andrew Selous Conservative
Hemel Hempstead Michael Penning Conservative
Buckingham John Bercow Speaker
South West Hertfordshire David Gauke Conservative
Aylesbury David Lidington Conservative
Chesham and Amersham Cheryl Gillan Conservative
Beaconsfield Dominic Grieve Conservative
Wycombe Steven Baker Conservative
Henley John Howell Conservative

These are the constituencies that as far as I can tell have boundaries that overlap with the area that The Chilterns covers. I don’t think I’ve missed any. None of these constituencies are wholly in The Chilterns and some only cover a small area.

True to form they are mostly Conservative held seats. The exception being the two Luton seats and that of the Speaker of the House of Commons, who by tradition is not opposed by the main political parties at an election, but who was originally elected as a Conservative.

See also:

 1st May 2013   11:57 am   0  Tags Luton, Politics 

I live in a Rotten Borough

Rotten Boroughs Logo (ERS campaign)When I was writing about the South Shields by-election the other day, talking about how safe seats marginalise those who live in them, I pointed out the dominance that the Labour Party have on the local council there. In fact Labour on South Tyneside council have 88.89% of the seats. Which according to the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) makes South Tyneside a ‘One Party State’.

The ERS have launched a ‘Rotten Boroughs’ campaign to highlight what they see as being wrong with the state of local government in England and Wales. New analysis that they have undertaken shows that 21 million people are living in the local government equivalent of One Party States’, which they define as;

“authorities with a single party holding over 75% of council seats, leaving opposition incapable of providing any checks of council decision making.”

The choice of 75% is because this figure gives the ruling party a two-thirds majority which means that they have the ability to change the rules by which a council is run without needing the support of any other party. A practical example of this is if the majority party don’t like the way the opposition is asking awkward questions in council meetings they can change the “Standing Orders” so that there are fewer opportunities for those questions to be asked.

All of the three major parties have examples of these one party states. The Liberal Democrats run Eastleigh with 86.36% of the councillors. This is not so much a problem of how the system is unfair to certain political parties, but about how our ‘First Past the Post’ voting system can give winning parties a disproportionate majority and in doing so make impossible proper scrutiny. As I have said many times — democracy is not just about voting — it also requires debate and challenge. If one party nearly always ends up running the council and the opposition is nearly always powerless to do anything that debate and challenge doesn’t happen and bad government results.

Luton is not the worst example of a ‘Rotten Borough’ but it does just fit within the ERS’s definition of a ‘One Party State’ given that Labour have exactly 75% of the seats on the Council.

I noted also that next door Central Bedfordshire is also a ‘One Party State’. Here the Conservatives have 83.05% of the seats.

I think this partly explains the polarised nature of politics in southern Bedfordshire. We have two unitary councils — each partly responsible for the welfare of the Luton/Dunstable/Houghton Regis conurbation — but each in turn dominated by a different and opposing political party. Scrutiny of both administrations is difficult and cooperation between the two made impossible because of the lack of a middle ground. For instance, the 36 Luton Labour councillors can’t establish working relationships with Central Bedfordshire Labour councillors because..er…there is only one.

What is the solution? Simply to introduce a fair voting system for local government elections in England and Wales — just like the one introduced into Scotland.

Does any of this strike a cord with you? The ERS are asking people to share their experience of how local democracy has failed them.

 23rd April 2013   1:46 pm   0  Tags Luton, Politics 

The new MP for South Shields has been chosen

With David Miliband heading off to his new job with the International Rescue Committee in New York the constituency of South Shields needs a new member of Parliament. Last week this new MP was chosen. It is to be a local councillor and social worker Emma Lewell-Buck.

What do you mean the by-election hasn’t happened yet?

I know that — but so what?

There is a vote scheduled for the 2 May. There will be a campaign. Doors will be knocked on. Leaflets printed. Hustings held. The main parties, and some of the fringe parties, will put up candidates. Those candidates will valiantly fly the flag for their party, its policies, and their personal commitment to the area.

And then the people of South Shields will do what they’ve always done and vote Labour.

Apparently South Shields is the only seat in existence since the Great Reform Act of 1832 to have never elected a Conservative MP. The Labour party have held the seat without interruption since 1935. Although the Labour vote has declined from their high point in 1997 when they won 71% of the vote, Miliband still won with 52% of the vote at the last General Election. A Labour majority of 11,000. In addition the make up of South Tyneside council is 48 Labour, 4 independent, 1 Conservative and 1 UKIP. As far as I can work out all the Councillors in the constituency are Labour (although there might be one independent).

In short, South Shields is the very definition of a safe Labour seat.

The truth is that the vote that mattered in deciding who the next MP was to be was the one held by the local Labour Party. Lewell-Buck was quoted as saying;

“Over the next few weeks, I’ll be out in every part of the constituency, knocking on doors and talking to local residents. I want to meet as many people as possible, and hear directly from them what they want from their new MP.”

I know nothing about her except what I’ve read and so have no reason to doubt her sincerity or commitment to her community. In all likelihood she will make an excellent constituency MP. However, in terms of what difference it will make to the result, she could just as well spend the next few weeks researching what she will say in her maiden speech.

I’m sure after the count somebody will say how the result “sends a message to David Cameron and this Conservative-led Government”. It won’t.

I am a democrat — the right to vote is precious — and I want the people of South Shields to have their voice heard. If that voice largely wants to speak about issues and values associated with labour politics then so be it. But the reality is, because this is such a safe seat, outside of the local area, the Labour Party will take those voters for granted and the other parties will largely ignore them. Very few national journalists will make the trip up to Tyneside to cover the result. So, unless there is an extraordinary political earthquake on 2 May, nobody will pay it much attention.

The reality of our political system is that those living in safe seats, whichever party holds them, are less important than those living in marginal seats. And South Shields is about as far away from a marginal seat as it is possible to get.

Does any of the above piss you off?

If yes, why not join one of these:

Picture from the BBC News website

 18th April 2013   7:01 pm   5  Tags Politics 

Luton Liberal Democrats hold Wigmore

Ballot papersOn Wednesday evening Alan Skepelhorn was elected to Luton Borough Council winning the local by-election for the Wigmore ward. This means that Luton Liberal Democrats have held on to this seat and we keep our numbers at 8 on the Council.

The by-election was held after the sad death of long-standing local campaigner Roy Davies.

I am really pleased. Not least because Alan was a colleague of mine when I was on the council — he was previously a councillor in Round Green ward — and I know what an asset he will be to the Lib Dem group.

But also because this was a really positive result for the Liberal Democrats in Luton. I think the local party was always hopeful of retaining the seat — but I am surprised at the size of the majority. This was a very bad result for the Tories — in effect dropping from second to third — and the Labour challenge was not as strong as I expected it to be. This actually represents a 3.1% swing from Labour to Lib Dems.

It is only one result and in a relatively strong area — but after the bashing we took in the last local elections — this does give some hope that the worst is over.

Credit must go to the small team who worked really hard to get this result. Myself, I didn’t really do much to help — but I did do a little — which is the most active campaigning I’ve done for a long while.

The full result was:

Alan Skepelhorn Lib Dem 982 47%
James Taylor Labour 517 24%
John Young Conservative 281 13%
Lance Richardson UKIP 230 11%
John Magill Independent 62 3%
Marc Scheimann Green 27 1%

Total Votes 2,102

Turnout 24.2%

(I gave the result from last time the ward was fought in May 2011 here)

More coverage of the result here:

 12th April 2013   12:14 pm   0  Tags Luton, Politics 

Wigmore by-election to be held on 10 April 2013

Ballot papersFollowing the sad death of Liberal Democrat Councillor Roy Davies a by-election to Luton Borough Council for the Wigmore ward is to be held on Wednesday 10 April 2013.

Note that polling day is a Wednesday — not the usual Thursday.

There are six candidates — all men — for the vacant place in this three member ward. The other two councillors for Wigmore are both Liberal Democrats.

The Liberal Democrat candidate will be former councillor Alan Skepelhorn. The Conservatives are putting forward John Young — a regular candidate for them in local elections in Luton. The Labour candidate is James Taylor — who I’ve not come across before.

The candidate for the Green Party will be long standing Green activist Marc Scheimann. Lance Richardson will be the candidate for UK Independence Party — he was the candidate for UKIP in this ward at the last local elections in 2011.

More details about the candidates and the by-election can be found on the Luton Borough Council website.

Going by the result in this ward from the last locals it could be one of those rare things — a genuine three party contest. While I of course hope that Alan can retain the seat for the Liberal Democrats, it will be interesting to see which party emerges as the main challenger.

Wigmore election result – 5 May 2011

Liberal Democrat 1403
Liberal Democrat 1239
Liberal Democrat 1113
Conservative 807
Conservative 787
Labour 786
Labour 781
Labour 734
Conservative 559
UKIP 324

 

 29th March 2013   2:03 pm   1  Tags Luton, Politics 

Consultation on the future of Luton’s Libraries

Luton Central LibraryLuton Borough Council are currently consulting on the future of the library service in Luton.

In common with many other councils, given the current financial constraints, LBC is looking at ways to change the provision of libraries in Luton in order to find budget savings.

In comparison to the savage cuts that libraries are facing in some places the proposals are relatively modest. Although they do mean that some parts of the Town will lose their local library.

The consultation deadline has been extended until Wednesday 24 April.

Details of the proposed changes can be found in the following factsheet:

You can also read the report that went to the Council’s Executive.

A brief declaration of interest: I am a trustee of Luton Culture, the charity that runs the library service on behalf of Luton Borough Council.

 27th March 2013   12:59 pm   0  Tags Luton, Politics