In the aftermath of the expenses saga that sparked so much debate about the political system and its faults, it is perhaps reassuring that political reform accounts for around one whole page – more than any other single issue. It is also another area where both sides of the coalition are having to tread very carefully in order to satisfy both their supporters and their wider critics.
One constitutional change that has already sparked a row is the decision to introduce fixed-term parliaments lasting five years, in place of the old system in which the prime minister decided when to call an election. Advocates say it increases stability and certainty about the future; opponents say it is anti-democratic – a fix designed to ‘lock in’ the new government.
Some critics even argue that the change increases the power of the executive, the growth of which under Labour was so heavily criticised by both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. I reject this argument. Just as coalition governments are the norm in other western democracies, so is a fixed term for which those governments are elected to govern.
After all, what greater power can the executive possibly hold than to call the shots on when they and their opponents are subjected to the most fundamental democratic scrutiny?
Besides, remember the controversy regarding Tony Blair’s declaration of his intention to serve a full third term before stepping down, only to be driven out of office after two years and replaced by an unelected prime minister? That situation almost certainly would not have arisen under fixed-term parliaments.
By contrast, the decision to increase to 55% the proportion of MPs who must oppose the government in a vote of confidence is suspicious. The difference is potentially significant – under the current 50% rule, the Conservatives would need the support of most Lib Dem ministers to survive a confidence vote; with 55% (358 votes) required, the Tories’ 307 votes alone would be enough, with room to spare.
Stability, yes, but at what cost to accountability?
Elsewhere, the agreement on holding a referendum on the Alternative Vote (AV) system is well-documented, and – for all the proclaimed opposition to it among Conservative ranks – it does not exactly represent a transformation; MPs would still be elected on a constituency basis, albeit requiring 50% support (through second and third preferences) to be elected.
It may be a first step, but it would need a much greater climb-down yet for the establishment to accept moves towards an actually proportional voting system. Nevertheless, voting reform has long been a defining policy for the Lib Dems, its inclusion in the coalition agreement is justifiably celebrated, and they probably stand to gain more than their rivals from AV.
Other, welcome moves on issues such as Lords reform and the power of recall of MPs did not cause particular controversy between the parties, although the latter will work in practice will be interesting, as any MP could become a subject of a petition by rather more than 10% of their electorate merely through the collusion of all those who voted against them at the polls.
Another issue on which both sides were previously agreed – and to which this blog will often return in the future – is the future of devolution. The parties have backed the implementation of the Calman Commission’s proposals for Scotland, and the offer of a referendum on greater powers for the Welsh Assembly. Attempts will also be made to answer the West Lothian Question…
No comments:
Post a Comment