Here is a question to ponder around the fireplace on a chilly April evening. What single issue links William Hague's manic determination to ennoble Michael Ashcroft, the broader disarray over the government's plans for the House of Lords, ministerial by-passing of local authorities, and a Freedom of Information Bill that will withhold significant information?
Hague's behaviour over Ashcroft and the peerage has been oddly out of character. Most of the time, Hague exudes a Buddhist-like calm. While the rest of his office is sometimes in despair over matters such as the latest opinion poll, Hague, I am told, always stays unmoved. Even during a fast-moving crisis, such as the Lord Archer fiasco, Hague, say Tory insiders, never loses his cool.
Yet over Ashcroft, Hague was in such a frenzy that he hauled Blair away from the Lisbon summit in order to bend the Prime Ministerial ear. Blair was forced to switch topics from flexible labour markets to flexible peerages. On the latter issue, he proved to be highly flexible. Within days, Michael Ashcroft had become Lord Ashcroft.
On the surface, Hague's behaviour looks mad. Why go out of your way to create a political embarrassment for yourself? The answer to this particular question, as distinct from the one posed at the start of the column, is straightforward. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that Ashcroft saved the Conservative Party. It had been virtually wiped out in the 1997 election. All the old traditional donors turned away. They saw little point in handing out large cheques to a party doomed to the wilderness for at least a decade. Only Ashcroft was unsparing in his generosity.
As a new leader at the time, Hague had two options. He could have rejected Ashcroft's cash on the grounds that the donor would become a big political liability. At which point, a penniless Conservative Central Office would have virtually ceased to function. Not surprisingly, a deeply grateful Hague took the money. A peerage was the least he could offer in return.
It says much about Blair's incoherent approach to the Lords that Hague could get away with nominating his party treasurer. Blair has claimed that the government is creating a constitution "fit for the 21st century". If this were the case, the constitution would have no room for Lord Ashcroft, nor for the "abolished" hereditary peers who have returned as nominated ones.
Lords reform encapsulates the strengths and frustrating weaknesses of the Blair project. "Do not forget we have abolished hereditary peers, a radical act which no other government has achieved," proclaim senior Blairites. And they are right. It should never be forgotten that other governments with big majorities have attempted Lords reform and got absolutely nowhere at all. But, then again, this government has not got rid of all the hereditary peers. Look in one mirror and we cheer a radical act. Turn the mirror around, and we see something that is not very radical at all.
With the Lords in mind, some newspapers have criticised Blair for losing the radical cutting edge he displayed in opposition. But, on constitutional reform, he has been entirely consistent. The 1997 manifesto promised the removal of the hereditaries and was suitably vague about what would follow after that. The disarray in the Lords, therefore, should not be a great surprise. Most of the senior Blairites are not greatly interested in constitutional reform and have not tried to pretend otherwise. Since becoming Prime Minister, Blair has not even made a speech attempting to link the diverse constitutional changes that have taken up so much legislative time.
After being out of power for 18 years, the government had other priorities. Education, education, education, health, health, health and welfare-to-work have been paramount.
To some extent, these wretched constitutional issues have got in the way - and not just in the amount of time they have taken up in parliament. Once the legislation had been passed, the reformed institutions have sometimes made governing more difficult, as the Lords' awkwardness over Clause 28 and Scotland's rebellion on student fees have shown. Labour spent 18 years in the wilderness. Why make governing more difficult when it finally reaches the promised land?
No surprise, then, that the Freedom of Information Bill is stuffed full of qualifications that protect ministers from prying eyes. No surprise, either, that local government gets short shrift. Blair, Gordon Brown and David Blunkett have been waiting years to sort out the schools. They don't want to hand over cash to the incompetent and, sometimes, corrupt party fiefdoms that rule much of local government. The quality of those who serve in the fiefdoms is one of the reasons, also, why most cabinet ministers strongly oppose regional government. They fear that those who have ruled incompetently at a local level will move from the town hall to a spanking new regional assembly.
We are moving close to the answer to my opening question: what links all these things? The Conservatives were nearly wiped out in 1997; Labour MPs spent 18 years in impotent opposition and now seeks unencumbered power to improve schools and hospitals; single parties rule some local councils for decades. The common factor is the "first past the post" voting system that so dramatically distorts the scale of election victories and defeats. The latest bizarre consequences have been played out over recent days. They provide the best possible argument for a change to a new voting system, for councils and the Commons. Only then will we get a constitution fit for the 21st century.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
