Last night, Harriet ‘What anomalies’ Harman appeared on Question Time, where electoral reform got a good airing.
Boris was on top form, though his idea of ‘electoral reform’ amounted to pushing the boundaries around a bit, thereby completely missing one of the main points.
Ms. Harmen annoyed me greatly when a panellist mentioned constitutional anomalies in the UK and she said ‘What Anomalies?‘
She will shortly receive the following letter:
Dear Ms. Harman
Last night you appeared on "Question Time". There was a comment about constitutional anomalies. In an astonishingly unaware comment from the Constitutional Affairs Minister you said "What anomalies?"
Please allow me to explain just a few of them.
In the UK, the government launched into a system of constitutional change, despite your statement on Question Time that this is not something to be rushed.
Your Government emasculated the House of Lords without having adequately thought through what would take its place, or consulting the public on a question which affects our governance - one item in a manifesto does not make a consultation. To date, the House of Lords question still remains unresolved. Any resolution should build in the ability of the Lords to be independent. My ideal would be three member constituencies, with one member elected via STV every three general elections. Thus the individual Lord is not continually looking for their next election and can scrutinize legislation without personal worry for their post.
Your Government also started on a process which weakened the UK government by devolving power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Island. Whether this was a right move or not is incidental at this stage. The situation as it stands is that, for example, Scottish MPs can vote upon matters which affect English constituents but not vice versa.
I fully accept that the UK parliament is for the whole of the UK - and so it should be for UK matters. Nevertheless it is fundamentally unjust that English constituents can be affected by votes from Scottish MPs and the reverse is not true. I do not personally want the UK to split up, but this imbalance can only grow with time - for the long term stability of the UK, balance is needed.
A failure to address this matter appears to be driven purely by concerns of party above country, especially given that the Conservatives won the popular vote in England - something which personally I’m not thrilled about.
Given that yesterday you were not aware of anomalies, I hope this letter has helped you to recognize some of them. I wish you well as you begin to address them.
I would be interested to hear your views on these matters and, in particular, how a Scottish parliament can be justified and yet an English parliament with similar powers cannot.
All Posts
7 Comments
Your Government emasculated the House of Lords
What by removing most of the hereditary peers? While I’m sure that many of them were (and are) lovely people I don’t think they have ever been described as the sexual organs of the House of Lords before.
(Edit: Oh dear, let’s make a deal of one possibly poorly chosen word. The issue is that ‘reform’ was launched into without a clear sense of direction. Let’s take away what we’ve got without knowing what the replacement will be…. this may well be expecting too much but as Harriet Harman pointed out constitutional reform is not something that one should launch into lightly - Murk)
Anyway, as Wikipedia points out of the 694 members of the House of Lords only 202 are members of the Labour Party so there’s still plenty of room for acting as a check and balance on the Government.
(Edit: Although with the continuing uncertainty about the position of the House of Lords, one can imagine that it is a good thing for the executive to leave things unresolved as it could provide a method of leverage - Murk)
Don’t get me wrong though there’s certainly a case for further reform and while your suggestion of (much) longer terms of office might work there are some potential side-effects that would be worth thinking about. Two spring to mind. How do you balance the democratic legitimacy of one House against the other? Do long terms of office make for more independence of mind (which you may think is a positive) but reduce the accountability of the representative (which you might think is a negative)?
(Edit: Each house has clearly defined roles. Both have legitimacy within their field, i.e. Lords as ‘revising’ and Commons as ‘drafting’. As the Lords would represent (with longer terms of office) an average of the long term sensibilities of the electorate, and the commons would be more to the moment ultimately the commons would have the ultimate authority, as it does now with the parliament act.
As for accountability of the commons, when you’re living in a safe seat accountability is a bit of a pipe dream.
Over the past few years we have seen the UK government pushing through ever more draconian legislation with the Lords acting to preserve the historic structures and liberties of this country.
A difference between the houses is essential if the Lords isn’t to simply rubber stamp the decisions of the executive as the commons does (or did, what happens in this parliament remains to be seen). If the Lords were elected on the same basis as the commons, there would be no point in having a house of Lords.
As for the balance of legitimacy the jobs are already clearly defined and all that is lacking is a ‘democratic’ way of appointing the Lords. This is all rather incidental, the main thrust of the letter was the issue of the English parliament - Murk)
Update to that count:
Labour: 214
Conservatives: 210
Lib Dem: 74
Crossbenchers: 181
So, as a statement of fact, Labour now have the biggest contingent in the Lords.
My TV was in serious danger last night. Harriet “what anomalies” Harman reminded me of a sketch on the Fast Show:
“Will you step out of the car please sir”
“No officer, I’m not in a car and you know it.”
“Sir, you are sitting in a car at this moment.”
“I am doing no such thing and I resent the implication…”
It’ll be interesting to see how “what anomolies” replies to your letter.
Further still to the House of Lords discussion:
There is a recommendation which is not far from what I’d like to see.
I like the idea of 12 year periods between elections for the Lords. Giving the members security in their positions might prevent the obsession with pandering to the media which is so prevalent under Blair.
I was initially opposed to an elected second chamber but this seems to be a sensible proposition.
And the cronyism of the current system under Blair, good grief, even the Tories weren’t that blatant.
(Edit: Quite, note though that my suggestion is 12 years only as far as an individual lord is concerned. For the electorate the influence of the Lords can be changed every general election. It would be vital that the voting system is a fair one here, especially given the longer timeframe. P.S. My apologies for the moderation delay, I thought I’d done this comment! - Murk)
(have intimate relations with)* HARRIET HARMAN! (have yet more intimate relations with) ALL OF THE ANTI-ENGLISH B*STARDS!!
(* - I have slightly edited this comment for language, it’s my site, I’m allowed - Murk)
As I understood your proposal, a third of all Lords would be up for election every 4 years or so. I like the idea, it’s certainly a huge improvement on the current system.
It looks like Blair is going to try to long grass the whole thing from what I’ve read.
(I was slightly confused about the moderation, especially when H.Ereward’s somewhat edited comment appeared. Thanks for clearing up that little puzzle for me. G.)
2 Trackbacks
Don’t Bet on Balls
… Never mind Balls, I think that backing Gordon Brown is a very, very risky bet; especially after Harriet Harman’s laughable performane on Question Time. Well, it would be laughable if it wasn’t so tragic.
If The English Question really begins …
Hopefully….
By now, you will have all written letters to Harriet Harman similar to this.
harmanh@parliament.uk
Gareth