Parliament - A new golden age?

The period between the first and second reform acts in the nineteenth century is often described as the golden age of parliament. This was because both houses were characterised by shifting parties and factions, with many other radical MPs thrown in so that every vote was hard fought over. Party discipline was weak and no administration could feel itself secure in securing its legislation. Furthermore it was an age of great orators, men who were capable of influencing a vote through the sheer force of their argument and the quality of their rhetoric. The result was that governments were forced to seek a consensus over each individual issue. This model of parliamentary politics can also be frequently seen in the USA, though it often results there in deadlock rather than consensus. Perhaps it is not too fanciful to suggest we are now entering a new golden era. It may, of course, turn out to be short lived, little more than a mini-era, , but we can hopefully enjoy it while the going is good. Two examples illustrate this. The first was the Lords’ rejection of the reduction in working tax credits, a decision that was confirmed in Osborne’s latest spending review. By the way, on that subject, the normally sure footed Osborne missed a trick, I think, by not accepting that he had been persuaded by the force of argument rather than claiming that he had accidentally discovered more money he didn’t know he had. It would have been more politically astute, I feel. The second was, of course, the Commons debate on intervention in Syria. Maybe we have become too cynical about the behaviour of MPs (with good cause in many cases). To hear some of the excellent speeches, Benn’s in particular, and, to see members visibly moved by the debate and the issue, was indeed striking and heart warming. We live in an age of a perfect parliamentary storm, I suppose. A government with a fragile majority, leading a party that is in garrulous mood with splits over foreign policy, Europe and austerity, a fragmented opposition and a completely hung House of Lords which is in the mood to defy the government if it feels like it – witness the recent amendment to allow 16 and 17 years olds to vote on the EU referendum, against government policy. The cabinet may have the devil of a job to overturn the amendment in the Commons, even if it is in the mood to try. Consensus building is an art form and it looks like the government is going to have to learn it fast. They did, however, make a very good start over the Syrian issue.

Helping A level Government and Politics students

Casa asked me about helping students studying government and politics independently, i.e. with no tuition etc. The best advice is to look at the Philip Allan publisher site a they have a wide range of materials, some of which can be used independently, for example a Workbook I wrote a couple of years ago. I also have my own materials. Contact neil_mcnaughton@hotmail.com and I can send some free. Hope this helps.

Corbyn and emotional intelligence

I have been concerned about Jeremy Corbyn's poor educational record from the start but now wonder about his social and emotional intelligence. I refer to his responses to Paris. This is not a time for deep analysis of geopolitics, nor is it a time to rake over past errors by Western powers. Political leaders need to show some nous at times like this. Empathy is needed more than lectures. On the shoot to kill issue (call it summary execution if you will), I also think he has misjudged things. When confronted with people who are prepared to lose their own life and take others with them, who have suicide belts on and are heavily armed, the idea of clapping them on the shoulder and saying,' come on now sonny, are you going to come quietly?'simply won't do. It is also a moot point whether this kingd of terrorism counts as warfare so the rule of law has to be suspended. Whatever the view, this is no time for such philosophising, it is a time for sorrow as well as vigilance. IS (please let's find another name - how about Stone Age fascism?) are beyond the pale however much we have messed up in the Middle East. That has to be stated firmly. Having said all that British politics may be better off with Corbyn. Apart from his healthier approach to discourse, he may well shift Labour away from its obsession with the centre ground and help it to become a real opposition of the centre-left. He won't survive, I'm sure, but theatre he leaves may have a new heart.

What is the House of Lords for?

First off let's cut through some woolly thinking and explanations by commentators over whar happened in the Lords last Monday. Leaving aside the issue of what the Lords can and cannot do with statutory instruments, there are two limitations on the Lords that are relevant here. One is the Parliament Act of 1911 which forbids the Lords from blocking money matters undertaken by the Government. The other is the Salisbury Doctrine dating from the 1940s. This is an unwritten convention that forbids the Lords from obstructing any measure that was contained in the governing party's last election manifesto. Now the most dramatic interpretation of what happened is that the Lords offended both these constitutional restrictions. A different view says they offended neither. Supporters of the former view argue that the proposed tax credit cuts are a money matter and that the Conservatives' manifesto commitment to reduce the budget deficit is being challenged here. Those who take the latter view suggest this was a welfare, not a money matter and that the Tories did not include tax credit cuts specifically in their 2015 manifesto. In other words the measure was fair game. The problem here is that there is no one to adjudicate. Both interpretations are compelling and could be supported. So we need a person or committee, along the lines of the US Rules Committee, that can say whether something is subject to the Parliament Act or the Salisbury Doctrine ( which should be enacted to clarify it). Not difficult really. More seriously, we need to ask questions about the role of the Lords. It comes down to this simple question. If the Lords does not have the power to delay a decision and ask the Commons and the Government to re-consider, what is it for? Osborne joked it might be abolished, but it should be if it is to have no meaningful powers. OK some peers do excellent work improving legislation at Report Stage, but it does not need over 800 of them to do this. It is incontrovertible to say that we cannot have key decisions like this made by people who are completely unaccountable, however well intentioned they may be.

China comes to town

Two things strike me as interesting or thought provoking in the visit of President Shi this week. The first is that I notice that Jeremy Corbyn agreed to dress up in a frock coat suit for the banquet. I am glad to see this. he does need to stop fighting small battles and concentrate on major issues. China is a major issue, including our relations with them. Absenting himself would have been pointless. he does need to take part in political exchanges like this in order to gain the authority to speak about them. So, good for him. he can now speak his mind. The second question is whether we should be dealing with the Chinese leadership at all. I think the answer is yes. I take as my lesson the situation with Russia currently. By being understandably antagonistic we have forced the disreputable Putin into a defensive corner. Authoritarian regimes, when backed into a corner do not tend to make concessions, they simply become more defensive, paranoid and brutal. It may be painful to deal with the Chinese but I believe the best hope for any liberalisation of their regime is if we have dealings with them and they become exposed to a different way of doing things. Surely the Chinese should be impressed by the fact that Britain can, at the same time, appear militaristic, aristocratic and shrouded in our own history, and yet allow reporters such as the BBC's to ask provocative questions of visitors. Surely they see that the decision to allow investment in our nuclear industry is being made subject to democratic scrutiny. We don't have a perfect democracy but we it is a democracy and it does not threaten the integrity of the state. Making enemies of the Chinese will do no good to either country. We can become a critical friend and that is what we should be. I don't expect Jeremy Corbyn to concur, but I happy that he is taking part in the game and not just shouting abuse from the touchline.

An explanation of the results of the 2020 general election

Since my last post giving the results of the 2020 general election events have moved on a little, but not much. I said that I thought UKIP would lose its only seat because Britain would vote to stay in the EU and so the party would have nowhere to go. Well, I still think they will have no seats after 2020 but for a different reason. Farage this week has hinted that the party will effectively dissolve itself if Britain votes to leave the EU. It may re-appear in another form, some kind of populist, anti-vested interest party, but UK Independence would look a little strange. Perhaps it will start campaigning against devolution and immigration alone. The migrant crisis, which looks set to run on for many years, has changed the context of the EU referendum and certainly strengthens the UKIP case for leaving and regaining control over our borders. Britain is already largely sealed off from the situation and leaving the EU would give an extra safeguard which would, I think, be widely popular. The Greens will change Natalie Bennett I expect but may hang on to their Brighton seat because Caroline Lucas is a one-off and very popular. They will be unlikely to make gains and might fall back in terms of votes if there is a Corbynite socialist (Old Labour) party contesting the election. Now to the nub of it. I cannot see any way forward for Labour other than to split. The party is now divided three ways, between the old centrist guard, the members plus supporters and the voters. An Old Labour Party could win some seats in the North (taking votes from UKIP) and maybe Scotland, but not so many, hence the low number. ‘New Labour’ would hang on to a substantial number of its traditional seats in Wales, the North West, Midlands and London but lose even more to the Conservatives than it did in 2015. Jarvis looks best placed to lead this group, though Kinnock junior has a shot. I think the Liberal Democrats can expect a partial recovery under Farron who appeals to a certain type of liberal (young idealists). The party is adding members and may find a niche, as Farron suggests, tucked between New Labour and Old Labour. But all this is overshadowed by the strong likelihood that the Conservatives will win the next election by an old style country mile. The referendum will paper over the cracks in the party; probably George Osborne will be the new leader with a good track record as Chancellor behind him (shades of Brown before the financial crisis swept him away) and still enjoying the proverbial honeymoon period, and the electoral system will work hugely in their favour, given the increasingly fragmented nature of the centre-left. I think my estimate of the majority might be conservative (no pun intended).

The Result of the 2010 General Election

Here is the result of the 2020 General Election (assuming there are still 650 seats – adjust accordingly if the number is reduced). Conservative 398. Led by George Osborne New Labour 120. Led by Dan Jarvis Old Labour 36. Led by Jeremy Corbyn Liberal Democrat 26. Led by Tim Farron SNP 45. Led by Nicola Sturgeon Plaid Cymru 5. Led by Leanne Wood Green 2. Led by Jenny Jones Northern Ireland Seats 18. Led by various UKIP 0. Led by Nigel Farage Others 0. Conservative Majority: 146 Next time I shall try to explain these results. They are based, incidentally, on the assumption that the UK will vote to remain a member of the EU. All bets are off if we don’t.