Mehdi Hasan

Mehdi Hasan’s polemical take on politics, economics and foreign affairs

The Con-Dem government’s constitutional con

This is not 1832. This isn’t even 1997.

By Mehdi Hasan Published 19 May 2010 13:19

"Clegg makes his bid for a place in history", says the headline in the Independent, ahead of the Lib Dem leader's first major speech -- on political and constitutional reform -- as Deputy Prime Minister. The Indie's cover ludicrously compares Clegg to Lord Grey, prime minister at the time of the Great Reform Act of 1832.

So what are Clegg and his Tory allies proposing? From the BBC website:

* Partially elected House of Lords
* Scrapping the ID card scheme and the national identity register
* Libel to be reviewed to protect freedom of speech
* Limits on the rights to peaceful protest to be removed
* Scrapping the ContactPoint database of 11 million under-18s

In his speech this morning, Clegg called the coalition's plans -- which include a referendum on electoral reform -- the "most significant act of empowerment by a British government" since the 19th century.

But Clegg's speech was disingenuous on two levels.

First, he conveniently ignored the record of constitutional reform under the previous government. The truth is that his own proposals pale into insignificance compared with what was achieved, constitutionally, in the early years of New Labour in power. But Clegg referred to a "big-bang approach" to political reform, as if we hadn't had one under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

Has he forgotten devolution to Scotland and Wales, directly elected mayors, the Human Rights Act, the Freedom of Information Act and the removal of the right of most hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords? All of these reforms were opposed by his new allies in government. In fact, the Conservatives "sealed the deal" with the Lib Dems on the evening of Monday 10 May by matching the Labour manifesto promise to legislate for an early referendum on the Alternative Vote -- but then pledged to campaign against AV in referendum campaign itself.

Bizarre and hilarious. The reality is that Labour introduced historic electoral reforms during its 13 years in office, including proportional representation: the Single Transferable Vote (STV) was used to elect the new Northern Ireland Assembly, the hybrid additional-member system (AMS) was used to elect the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh and the Greater London Assemblies and a regional list system was employed for the 1999 elections to the European Parliament.

So Clegg is wrong -- and dishonest -- to behave as if, constitutionally, this is Year Zero. As the excellent History Learning Site points out:

In a purely constitutional sense, the Britain pre-Blair was a foreign country. There was no Edinburgh Parliament or Cardiff Assembly, no London elected mayor or the promise of more mayors to come in towns and cities. Hereditary peers held the balance of power in the House of Lords. Proportional representation was something they did on the Continent, like the European Convention on Human Rights. Most of the heavyweight constitutional changes figured in the first Queen's Speech, but many voters failed to understand why the first Labour government for 20 years took up so much parliamentary time on reforms when there were far more pressing problems such as the NHS.

The second point to note is that this Con-Dem government is indeed changing the constitutional and political character of this country -- but not all the changes are positive, democratic or welcome. Take Clegg and Cameron's plans to pack the House of Lords with new peers from their two parties. As Jonathan Freedland points out in the Guardian:

All those excited by the talk of the "new politics" should be looking hard at the coalition's nods in the direction of the old. Most egregious is the rumoured plan to create more than 170 Tory and Lib Dem peers to ensure the government always gets its way in the House of Lords. The coalition agreement says that until the second chamber is reformed -- and British history tells us you can wait a full century for that to happen -- "interim" appointments will be made to reflect the share of the vote won in the last election. That looks reasonable enough, with the Tories having 36 per cent of the peers and the Lib Dems getting 23 per cent. But put them together, and the coalition would loom over the upper house, able to call on a staggering 59 per cent of those present. That would violate the principle that has held since most of the hereditaries were banished in 1999, namely that no single party -- and no government -- should dominate the second chamber. Labour was defeated 350 times in seven years in the Lords. Clearly this is one form of check and balance that the new coalition, for all its talk of new politics, is keen to remove.

(See Sunder Katwala's Next Left blog for more details on these alarming proposals.)

Then there is the controversial proposal to require the support of at least 55 per cent of MPs in order to dissolve the House of Commons, part of the introduction of fixed-term parliaments. This constitutional innovation would, theoretically, protect a minority government from being dismissed from office. Power to the people? Not quite. In his speech, Clegg had a go at Labour figures for misunderstanding the proposal, but glossed over the criticisms from Tory figures such as the former shadow home secretary (and self-proclaimed "freedom" campaigner) David Davis MP.

"The requirement for a 55 per cent majority to dissolve parliament, and thereby dismiss a government, dramatically reduces the ability of parliament to hold the executive to account," wrote Davis in the Telegraph. Meanwhile, the Lib Dem negotiator Andrew Stunell -- now a minister in the coalition government -- told Newsnight that the rule "prevents a surprise attack on the Conservatives by everybody else: it is as simple as that".

This is not democratic reform of the unwritten British constitution, it is a partisan and self-serving parliamentary power-grab.

But perhaps the most brazen piece of constitutional gerrymandering -- which Clegg had little to say about this morning! -- is David Cameron's proposal to cut the number of MPs by 10 per cent.

From the Guardian:

The Conservatives propose that no constituency should be between 3.5 per cent and 5 per cent either larger or smaller than the national average, which they believe would rub out up to 40 Labour seats. The Lib Dems also propose a cut in the number of constituencies, but have been less clear on whether they want to follow the Tories in equalising constituency size.

. . . Labour's outgoing constitutional affairs ministers see the plans as potentially one of the most politically explosive issues to face the new parliament. Labour argues that the bias arises from higher levels of abstentions in Labour seats. Turnout in safe working-class Labour seats tends to be much lower.

I'm astonished that the Conservatives insist on a referendum to sanction a change in the electoral system from first-past-the-post to the Alternative Vote (when, in fact, the change would have no impact on constituency boundaries and simply give voters the opportunity to rank their local candidates in order of preference), but are not proposing a referendum on this drastic and unprecedented proposal of theirs, which would involve the wholesale redrawing of constituency boundaries. The Isle of Wight, for example, would be merged with a large part of Hampshire.

And please, please let's not pretend that this is about "cutting the cost of politics". As Jack Straw noted in his speech to the Hansard Society back in March:

The size of the Commons has increased by 3 per cent -- 21 members -- since 1950. The size of our constituencies has increased by 25 per cent over that period.

He added:

The apparently virtuous call to cut the cost of politics is actually camouflage for a dangerous, destructive and anti-democratic piece of gerrymandering. Their proposal is not about cutting the cost of politics; it is about advantaging the Conservative Party.

Yes, it is. And it's a shame "Clegg the Reformer" has no plans to stop them.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Nick Clegg Electoral Reform

More from Mehdi Hasan

View the discussion thread.

50 comments

Thu, 2010-05-20 16:54 — Baig

Why would you leave in 1996? Was that another error due to the hangover?

I left Labour after the Iraq war and Tony Blair's pathetic, ugly and unfair rhetoric when it came to the Middle-East peace process. Spin of its worst kind. It was not fairness by any stretch. I could no longer bear to his face on tv, it began to look so evil and made me sick.

With Brown in, I was up for Lab-Lib coalition with Gordon Brown as PM. After seeing the Lib Dem sell-out to put the Tories back in, I regret thinking in that way now. Now, I am behind Labour as it is the only party opposed to the Tories.

The sad thing I regret is that none of the candidates have that passion and traditional Labour spirit that Gordon Brown have, as highlighted in his Citizens UK speech and the others that followed.

Thu, 2010-05-20 17:17 — DACrowe

"After seeing the Lib Dem sell-out to put the Tories back in" - Interesting, I saw Labour sabotage a Lib-Lab deal to let the Tories in because they thought they were better off in opposition. I guess if you believe Lord Adonis then you end up watching different news to the rest of us.

Thu, 2010-05-20 17:48 — ROBERT TAGGART (not verified)

If the ConDems can out-gerrymander Liebour that be fine by moi... thirteen years in the wilderness be the least Liebour deserve.
Warning to the ConDems... do not leave the gerrymandering to 'westminster' matters alone... remember all those English urban councils 'condemned' to Liebour rule ? Unless they sort those out Liebour will continue to enjoy a power-base from which they could wreak havoc again.

Wed, 2010-05-19 13:30 — Frederick Chichester

What a pity you weren't bleating about electoral gerrymandering when Labour fixed the boundaries to give themselves a massive advantage in the election just gone. Cameron will undo this outrageous stitch-up - no more, no less.

Wed, 2010-05-19 13:39 — Mike (not verified)

What about Labour's gerrymandering of boundaries to give them a bonus of Approx. 50 seats?

I've never voted Tory and i don't suppose I ever will, but Mehdi's blinkered view that the Labour party can do no wrong is just a bit dull and repetitive now.

Labour were just as crooked in government as the Tories were.

Fri, 2010-05-21 00:40 — Keiranmac (not verified)

Hasan is the pot, Clegg is the kettle.

Mehdi, I welcome your comments;

http://gyroscopickeiran.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-mehdi-hasan-is-wrong.html

Wed, 2010-05-19 13:45 — vanrisszcu

"Mehdi's blinkered view that the Labour party can do no wrong is just a bit dull and repetitive now."

Hilarious. What a foolish and lazy comment.

Have you ever read any of my columns or blogs? I'm ultra-critical of New Labour and Blair/Brown on a whole host of issues from financial regulation to Afghanistan to Iraq to immigration to the lack of progress on electoral reform for Westminster.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to give this government a pass.

Fri, 2010-05-21 01:33 — Nick (not verified)

Don't know how many of you watched QT tonight, it's a good way of judging just how likely this new Con and Lib alliance is likely to fall apart. Don't get me wrong I'd like to think this is the 'wonderful new era' of political change but sadly, even though it's early days,it's just not going to work; it's one which is bound to fail. I actually think Cameron and Clegg think they can pull it off; but the back benchers and disgruntled old school party 'faithful' will turn on their leaders, as will the media. This is what brings governments down but usually it's at the end of a long term when everyone has got bored of the same old party and thinks change is for the good. Cameron and Clegg know that the only way of putting up a public show of unity (thus enforcing their contention that we've been landed with a 'stable government') is to brush the unpopular stuff under the carpet (the stuff they'll never agree on) and say they'll leave it to a 'commission' to work out what's best for us all. The Tories big promise was to reduce all the bureaucracy that goes with commission after commission who never makes decisions and it's now the Tories who seem to be proposing all they oppossed! A coalition would be good if only everyone was in tune but there must be a consensus of agreement; there isn't and never will be. Proposing change is one thing but parliamentary reform is quite another, some of the legislation needed to implement all of this change will be impossible to pass. The revolt won't come from a strong Labour opposition; it'll come from the old old faces of the Tories, you know the old 'has beens', Heseltine, Hague, Duncan Smith to name but a few. Labour will return as a credible and constructive government after this dodgy marriage turns sour and it'll happen far quicker than the idealists care to appreciate. In the old days it was the militant donkey jacket brigade who brought Labour down but now the jackets will be more appropriately worn by the disgusted Tory back bencher's who'll never ever go for all this radical liberal stuff, it's just not in their blood! I'd love a stable government who I could have confidence in to fix our economy but it won't be found in this coalition. I hope I'm wrong but I'm guessing we'll be back at the polls in two years; I doubt the 55% fixed term will get the approval that everyone seems to be taken for granted. I hope I'm wrong but the clapometer in the QT audience tells me there's no great faith in this coalition, I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:05 — Peter (not verified)

Excellent article. Scratch the surface of the 'New Politics' and a cynical and anti-democratic agenda is revealed. But they started as they wished to go on - by discarding manifesto pledges for which they gained support in the first place.

The 'New Politics' is all about power, but not for the people.

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:11 — Seff Qaid (not verified)

I listened to the Con-Dem representative speech and it seems to me it is full of self interest , just like you commented there was no recognition of the reforms in place and how forward thinking they where , My thinking is this Con-Dem party is trying to set up a dictatorship , and guarantee taking over our right to vote as we see fit the 55% rule altering the boundaries’, reducing elected Members of Parliament , and lets not forget the Big Society were we all do everything , and when the Big Society goes down the drain and does not work for what ever reason you cannot point the finger at the Con-Dem Party it will be the voters fault .

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:17 — Little Angussie (not verified)

When you trumpet all of labours 'triumphs' you conveniently forget to say that the constitutional reforms all had an inbuilt labour bias to maintain the balance in their favour. David Cameron is rightly trying to amend the constituencies to favour no single party. If the shires were broken down into constituencies the size of labour dominated inner city seats, the Tories would be in power forever. So please hold your tongue for just a minute and realise that gerrymandering this is not.

it appears labour are only interested in political reform when it benefits their own rotten ideals.

And after watching Question Time last week, if your idea of democracy is to shout down people making valid reasoned argument and ridiculing their point of view, you have some neck writing about anti-democcratic Tories who have dared to remove labour's main advantage.

Now its time to stop the block postal votes your party encourage too and stop Scottish MPs from voting on English affairs. By the way I am a sensible Scotsman who has no truck with the tribal lefties who would vote for a monkey in a red rosette up here - mind you on reflection you would get the same level of debate that you propound!

Fri, 2010-05-21 09:56 — Nick (not verified)

Let's not forget sight of the fact that no single party was elected as a result of the public vote. The electorate voted (apart from those who took the tactical line) for what they thought 'their' party represented. What we've ended up with is a hotch potch of ideas badly welded together by the Cons and the Libs to reflect something that's being sold to us as in the 'Nation's best interests'.

Well then let the Nation decide upon what they make of policies they didn't vote for at all; this surely has to be the more progressive form of people power we are all being sold. Isn't that what Cameron and Clegg promised us all?

Keep the constitution as it is and let's see a public measuring of Cameron and Clegg's performance; including an opportunity for the publc to vote on what they think, this would also be the opportune moment for the electorate to vote on electoral reform as well as what form this should take. Another poll in two years time will remind all MP's of the need to work in our best interests. Already this 'new exciting step' in politics is showing signs of being just another unappealing show of MP's getting power without regard to the Nation they are paid to represent; It'll end in tears I tell you!

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:19 — mendi (not verified)

no, you have just turned into a Labour attack dog, now that you see they are in opposition.

Why not attempt a fair approach to the LD's instead of your polemical crap.

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:29 — thinkov

What a tiresome bunch of the easily shocked we get on here

Pathetic

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:32 — vanrisszcu

Little Angussie - seeing as how the devolved Parliament in Scotland has produced a minority SNP administration and the mayor in London is now a Tory, I'm not sure how Labour's constitutional reforms had an "inbuilt Labour bias".

Mendi - Am I not fair to the Lib Dems?

Thinkov - thank you. Exactly.

Fri, 2010-05-21 09:38 — Tom (not verified)

So the Labour party will be supporting a referendum on a properly proportional voting system ? Wouldn't that be cool - there ought to be enough votes to get it through the Parliament or watch as the Lib Dems vote against the chance of a referendum on STV.

Come and tell us if it's going to happen?

Wed, 2010-05-19 14:56 — rossybeary

Anyone have a link to an article which explains how Labour gave themselves a 'massive advantage' in the election just gone?

I'm aware of Labour MP's who lost there seats because the boundary commission tagged on a Tory voting rural constituency onto a urban Labour voting one.

This is the same old politics. Fixing the system to benefit themselves. A partnership built on lies and betrayal. The next election is Labour's to lose.

Wed, 2010-05-19 15:16 — Mike Green

I recently blogged a text and email exchange I had with Peter Facey, director of Unlock Democracy (Charter 88), over how the 55% rule may result in an enhanced role for the monarchy.

Remarkably, he was relaxed about that.

Wed, 2010-05-19 15:21 — Seff Qaid (not verified)

Mendi It looks to me we have some politically bias people and that makes them miss the point It is the fact that we have a minority party that is supporting another and making very serious decisions that will effect us all in how we will be represented in future years it sound s fantastic coming from the mouths of Clegg & Cameron but please look into the what is behind it , I am 64 years old and have seen many Political Party’s come and go ,and without dwelling on what has gone I hear comments now about The private Sector it was a Conservative Government that did the most damage to the British public in getting rid of Ship Building The mining Industry when British coal was the cheapest going , so please don’t believe everything the say and please keep a open mind.Politics is not what the say it is how it ends up,

and thank you Mendi for you open debates

Wed, 2010-05-19 15:30 — MickGJ (not verified)

"The Isle of Wight, for example, would be merged with a large part of Hampshire."

Er...the Isle of Wight is already the largest consituency in the country and a safe Tory seat so merging it with Hampshire is hardly likely to help Cameron's cause.

Wed, 2010-05-19 16:09 — Jimbo3

How is it not electoral gerrymandering to use out-of-date census data to set the boundaries because it will give better results for Labour?

Labour's political reform achievements:
* Devolution to Scotland and Wales - Which the LibDems supported
* Directly-elected mayors - I'm inclined to think this is a grey area. It's not obvious why you need to create a legislative/executive division at the local level.
* The Human Rights Act - A longstanding LibDem policy, the passage of which was the upshot of LibDems amongst others lobbying the government.
* The Freedom of Information Act - Labour also voted consistently to exempt the government and the house of commons from freedom of information.
* The removal of the right of most hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords - It's not quite the same as a fully elected upperchamber though, is it? They didn't even get rid of the bishops!

Imagine what we could have done with a majority in the commons over the same period. Or alternatively what we could have done had the Lib-Lab coalition deal not been shot down by Prescott. Do you really accept the History Learning Site's suggestion that the reason further progress wasn't made e.g. on parliamentary or electoral reform was because the whole Labour party was working too hard on improving the NHS?!

Wed, 2010-05-19 16:11 — Jimbo3

Also as I'm sure you're well aware the AMS system of the Scottish Parliament was a compromise between those who wanted PR (the LibDems) and those who didn't want a proper PR system (the Tories and the 'less progressive' elements of the Scottish Labour party).

Wed, 2010-05-19 16:17 — Robert P (not verified)

Labour's record on political reform is not so great as you make out. What, for example, was the need for the bizarre arrangement of retaining some hereditary peers in the Lords and allowing them to elect each other when one of them died? And, after having sensible voting reform put forward by the Jenkins commission, why did the cabinet dismiss it? Devolution is a remarkable achievement, and yes Clegg's speech contains some hyperbole, but you've skipped over the fact that the boundaries are currently biased in Labour's favour, and your list of Clegg's reform policies is missing recall elections and limits on party donations. Does that make you the dishonest man you claim Clegg to be?

No, just human like he is, and I understand why you might feel disappointed if you wanted to see a progressive realignment of the centre-left. But is it fair to swipe at Clegg and the Lib Dems without putting their side into perspective? Look, this is what I think. Clegg is doing his best to tame the Tories, who could easily have won an outright majority had he not have reversed the Lib Dem fortunes in the debates (did you see their share of the vote before the campaign?). We all know Labour needed to go into opposition and reshape themselves rather than go tired into a rainbow coalition with an wafer-thin majority – plenty of Labour MPs think that.

Like it or not, the centre-left can't have everything all of the time. We should all grow up and deal with that.

Wed, 2010-05-19 16:31 — priggy

Hi, I'm guessing the West Lothian question might be asked this parliament.
The question of Scotland trusting England will be under question as well as the Tories are the English nobles of yesteryear who we fought independence from.

Wed, 2010-05-19 16:50 — DavidB (not verified)

What Clegg didn't mention is that the coalition would probably have to change the terms of reference of the Boundaries Commission in order to get any major reform of constituencies through quickly. I think that there'll be second and third thoughts about some of this as any government and/or party which can legitimately be accused of gerrymandering is going to run into trouble.

It's very early days, and, notwithstanding the protests about cuts to come including general strikes of public service workers, many Tories will be seething about the softly softly approach to the EU required to keep the LibDems happy whilst many LibDems will be mighty disappointed about the probable lack of progress on their civil liberties agenda.

Wed, 2010-05-19 17:45 — davidk1

Any gerrymandering that goes on will be more than equalised as practically the whole of the centre left ground votes Labour in the next election. Make no mistake, when we get to that election there will be a no room for a Lib Dem Party. We have two party poplitics back with a vengeance. Let the Tories and their junior partners battle it out on the right flank.

Wed, 2010-05-19 18:10 — PK (not verified)

Mehdi, in your role as political editor do please ask the following to all Labour leadership candidates.

If this proposed law is passed and in the 2015 election the result is flipped and Labour wins 306 seats and the Tories win 258, all other parties remain as they are now, will all of the Labour leadership candidates provide an unqualified undertaking - now, before they get appointed - that on 8 May 2015 they will repeal this "partisan and self-serving parliamentary power-grab?"

If not can they please spare us any faux outrage. Many thanks.

Wed, 2010-05-19 18:12 — PK (not verified)

My above post of course refers to the 55% law regarding dissolution of Parliament.

Wed, 2010-05-19 18:41 — Reginald-Fah-fah

Marvellous to see you on last week's Questiontime Mehdi.

Jolly good sport I say!

Wed, 2010-05-19 18:45 — Jimbo3

@Nicola

"The question of Scotland trusting England will be under question as well as the Tories are the English nobles of yesteryear who we fought independence from."

As a Scot I feel I'm within my rights to say that's total cobblers. It's very likely the SNP (and perhaps others?) will be pushing for a referendum on independence with the Tories back in power. But the poor reputation of the Tories in Scotland has naff all to do with the Wars of Independence (which, contrary to your assertion was not so much a war fought to win our independence outright but rather a liberation struggle against Edward I and Edward II political and military usurpation of Scottish rule. As a republican I don't much distinguish between rule by one set of Normans (Edward Plantagenet) and rule by another (Robert de Bruys)) but rather to do with the consequences for the Scottish economy of the Thatcher governments sudden withdrawal of subsidy for British industry and transfer of economic emphasis to the commercial sector based in London at the expense of traditionally industry-based areas of the country such as Scotland and the North of England. And then the poll tax.

As to the earlier remark for perhaps obvious reasons Labour and the LibDems have not had much to say about the 'West Lothian question'. I suspect that it will come up, yes, and there will likely be a referendum within England about an English devolution during the current Parliament, though there are no plans for doing so at present in the coalition agreement.

Wed, 2010-05-19 19:27 — vanrisszcu

PK - I will do. Good question.

Wed, 2010-05-19 19:33 — Baig

Why has my comment not appeared? I posted it earlier on in the day. Anyway I cannot be bothered to rewrite, just say well done to Mehdi Hasan for a great article. We need to keep close tabs on what the ConDems tell us and the supporting media.

Wed, 2010-05-19 19:40 — josephCape

Interesting points which again caution anyone who takes a sanguine view of the new Con-Dem admin. However, I don't understand why splitting up the current regions would favour the Tories. Surely if, south of the border, safe Labour seats tend to be in big cities with larger populations then splitting those with populations > 5% of the Nat avg would give for more Labour MPs. Conversely, given that more safe Tory seats (like the Isle of Wight) are less populated, subsuming them under other seats would diminish the # of Tory MPs. Have I missed something?

Wed, 2010-05-19 20:06 — mr_wonderful (not verified)

Thankfully articles like this give some balance to the nauseating Lib/Con "love in". New politics? I'd laugh if it wasn't so tragic.

Wed, 2010-05-19 20:25 — Liz D (not verified)

Regarding constituency boundaries, didn't Labour's changes redress the previous bias toward the Conservatives?
Look at the figures in the recent election. With respect to percentage vote share, Labour now has 69 seats too many and the Conservatives 73. If there was a bias towards Labour, their bonus seats due to FPTP would be greater than the number gained by the Conservatives.
A new change of boundaries removing 40 current Labour seats would clearly be undemocratic.

Wed, 2010-05-19 20:35 — Liz D (not verified)

josephCape - what you're missing, I think, is the geographic size of constituencies. Safe Conservative seats in rural areas are much larger geographically than safe Labour seats in inner cities, cancelling out the effect of population density.
Also, you're assuming inner city seats would be split giving more Labour MPs. I'm not sure this is exactly what the current Government is intending - rather, a split of an inner city seat combined with merging the resultant pieces with rural areas.
I'm not sure how the Isle of Wight/Hampshire example fits this - I'd have to have a look at the statistics.

Wed, 2010-05-19 21:19 — Jimbo3

@JosephCape - You're missing the fact that you're 180degrees wrong about migration patterns since the last census; people have been moving out of cities and into the suburbs/rural areas (perhaps as a response to the cost of ownership of property in the cities, especially for first time buyers; perhaps because of increased or improved or cheaper transport (private or public)) and as a result it is rural, mainly Tory seats, which now have been growing in population at the expense of urban, mainly Labour seats. This means a redrawing of the boundaries according to current population figures would mean less urban and nominally Labour seats and more rural and nominally Conservative seats.

Of course, if we had a proportional voting system this would be less of an issue.

Wed, 2010-05-19 22:08 — clem the gem (not verified)

Over the last century, there has been a general bias in the redistribution of seats in favour of suburban/country areas to be put together, which has in most cases favoured the Tories, and to some extent the LibDems.
The current 55% proposal on confidence issues puts yet more power in the hands of any executive, and takes away parliamentary control. This is not a party political point, simply what we are being told. As part of the tradition of British radicalism dating back to at least The Civil War, Labour are utterly in the right on this one.
As to the other proposals, how could we object to freedom to protest, scrapping ID cards, more freedom of speech, along with AV and Lords reform? The simple answer is we shouldnt, as socialists we are supposed to be in favour of Liberty. New Labour hated both - away with it!
However, as Mehdi points out, the devil is in the detail. We do not need less MPs, or bigger constituencies, we just need more equal ones.
1832 increased the number of propertied male voters by 60% - to something like 10% of the adult population, if I remember rightly. It was outrage at this classic Whig/Liberal stitch-up that led to the formation of The Chartists - and the real fight for democracy in Britain.

Wed, 2010-05-19 23:19 — Mrs Nobody

The Great Reform act of 1832 amongst other things got rid of the rotten boroughs. A truly radical reform act today would make our representatives of the people truly of the people. No one who hasn't been to state school all the way through should be allowed to stand for parliament. That would shake up politics in this country.

Wed, 2010-05-19 23:27 — Kevin Colwill (not verified)

55%, aside from being a figure that smells bigger than a mouse changes what confidence motions mean.
No longer is the onus only on the government to demonstrate it has the confidence of the house. The opposition would have to demonstrate they could form an alturnative coalition. Failure to do so throws the ball back to the government to plough on as a minority administration.
A legal analogy is shifting the burden of proof. This in itself makes rebellions far less likely.

Thu, 2010-05-20 01:10 — Alex L-L (not verified)

I studied politics at University and in particular British Political Parties. I have been abroad for over 2 years and have not exactly been keeping up to date with the political gossip. This article and comments remind me of those boring political debates that go round and round in circles. I tend to lean left so I'm all up for a Tory bashing but I agree with most of the arguments made in opposition to this obviously bias article. The sad truth is that most Brits find politics boring and further more choose not to understand basic political concepts. This kind of politics is dead and its time for the real reformers to make some decisions in the words of Plato 'the unexamined life is not worth living'. You guys need to get some Zizek, Bookchin, Kropokin etc in your noggins.

Thu, 2010-05-20 01:49 — Alex (not verified)

"First, he conveniently ignored the record of constitutional reform under the previous government. The truth is that his own proposals pale into insignificance compared with what was achieved, constitutionally, in the early years of New Labour in power. But Clegg referred to a "big-bang approach" to political reform, as if we hadn't had one under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown."

Well, considering that around half of what the coalition is planning to do is restore civil liberties that Labour had dismantled, I hardly think that Clegg was going to say that Labour's reforms were as great as these proposed ones.

Then there's also devolution of power. Yes, Labour did some, though not enough, with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but they totally ignored England, and in many areas they over centralized. Both the Tories and Lib Dems want to see devolution down to local areas on things like health and so on.

Why in this piece, Mehdi, are you ignoring two thirds of Clegg's speech? You attack the coalition on electoral reform, but don't look at their proposals on civil liberties or devolutions, areas where Labour's record was inadequate at best, and downright authoritarian at worst. Your silence on their proposals for these issues is very interesting.

"So Clegg is wrong -- and dishonest -- to behave as if, constitutionally, this is Year Zero"

Well he didn't He considers his proposals to go further than Labour did. You think differently. That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But that's just what it is - an opinion. You can't call Clegg "dishonest" for holding a different opinion to you.

"Take Clegg and Cameron's plans to pack the House of Lords with new peers from their two parties."

Which Clegg today denied. Perhaps you missed that part?

Note that even if the claims were true, Freedland is wrong to say that "But put them together, and the coalition would loom over the upper house, able to call on a staggering 59 per cent of those present."

That ignores the 186 crossbenchers.

"Then there is the controversial proposal to require the support of at least 55 per cent of MPs in order to dissolve the House of Commons, part of the introduction of fixed-term parliaments. This constitutional innovation would, theoretically, protect a minority government from being dismissed from office."

Not it wouldn't. Note the word "dissolve" in your first sentence. Minority governments would still be got rid of by a simple majority winning a vote of no confidence. This only pertains to the dissolution of Parliament.

Davis is wrong to say that it "dramatically reduces the ability of parliament to hold the executive to account". This proposal takes power away from the executive, as up till now, only the Prime Minister can dissolve Parliament (with the Queen's permission) before the 5 years are up. David Cameron tomorrow could, if he wanted to, go see the Queen and ask for a dissolution. This proposal says that he shouldn't be able to do that, at least unless Parliament has given him permission.

And it's interesting that you earlier brought up Labour's creation of the Scottish Parliament, but you don't mention the dissolution rule there - 66% of MSPs have to agree. That's the rule that Labour brought in.

"But perhaps the most brazen piece of constitutional gerrymandering -- which Clegg had little to say about this morning! -- is David Cameron's proposal to cut the number of MPs by 10 per cent."

The academics disagree with you:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/dec/21/cameron-plan-bias-el...

And Clegg did mention it btw. He said "And, hand in hand with that change, there will be new constituency boundaries, reducing the number of MPs overall and creating constituencies that are more equal in size."

And on Jack Straw's statistics, what does how many MPs there were over the last 60 years have to do with whether or not cutting the number of MPs or not will reduce the cost of politics? Perhaps Cameron would say that politics has cost too much throughout the past 60 years. It doesn't seem a very good "gotcha" moment from Straw.

I'm not sure I agree with the 10% proposal, but there's no need for hyperbole about what it would mean.

Thu, 2010-05-20 02:33 — Sue Davies (not verified)

Do you think the Lib Dems have realised yet that they have been set up to deliver and defend all the bad news?

Norman Lamb will have to speak for Clegg, Laws for Osbourne, Vince Cable on selling Royal Mail... I think Cameron is not as vacuous as he looks -

As my 91y old mother said " isn't it funny how much more unpleasant Clegg now appears to be in comparison to Cameron, when it was the reverse a couple of weeks ago."

Thu, 2010-05-20 03:06 — Baig

You guys are doing a great job here. I never thought the Tories would get in but when I did see the ConDem marriage take place I was taken aback, feeling I should have been doing more before the election date to stop the Tories getting in. Complacency is a dangerous thing.
It seems some voters have very short memories or are oblvious to history.

Labour has done a lot in terms of reforming the political system. The system is staggeringly different to what it was 13 years ago.
These developments should have been talked about more in the campaign. The should have talked more about the record so people knew what they were in for.

I resented Labour (or Tony Blair I should so) on the Iraq war and also their light-touch approach to Israeli aggression. In terms of domestic policy, however, they have achieved a lot.

Labour was implementing fairness at home (Brown?) but not abroad (Blair?). The Tories supported the war and would have gone in with the US if they were in power. This means they are unfair abroad and unfair at home.

Thu, 2010-05-20 06:03 — historybuff

How about some constitutional reform in the Islamic World that grants all non-Muslims, women and sexual minorities freedom and legal equality to Muslim men?

Sun, 2010-06-20 15:32 — Charliechops1

The Parliamentary Party should not play the Coalition game. We should test their nerve by opposition votes icluding against the second reading. And how about an amendment to give voters a single transferable vote?

Thu, 2010-05-20 10:00 — Chris Brooke (not verified)

My friend Ted Vallance tells me that the radical MP John Cam Hobhouse said of the 1832 Reform that it was a "mere trick of state for the preservation of power".

So Clegg's proposed reforms may have more in common with 1832 than we might otherwise be led to believe.

Thu, 2010-05-20 12:24 — clem the gem (not verified)

Nice one Chris!

Baig, mosty of us here resented New Labour, and I laft Labour in 1996, but fond that when faced with a real Tory threat, I just couldn't stand aside. I rejoined on 6th May, and would encourage all who truly wish to make a practical contribution to do so as well.
Especially since the Leadership election just got interesting...

Thu, 2010-05-20 12:25 — clem the gem (not verified)

Ooh, I should never post with a hangover! Sorry for spelling errors above.

Thu, 2010-05-20 15:42 — weijian

Hot summer day is about to,Open the wardrobe is not yet found love after
another the right clothes? So, also waiting for? Immediate action bar!
Welcome to { www.ongoin.com } sure you will find what you need.
Moreover, the company has a good reputation, product quality standards,
at reasonable prices. Over the years, has been well received by overseas
friends for their support. Therefore, please rest assured purchase.
welcome to :===== http://www.ongoin.com ====
(LV Versace Gucci Chanel Prada )handbags
Nike women hoody
Cartier necklace
Dior necklace

Bikini (Ed hardy,)

......
Best regards for you all,

Looking forward to your visiting.

FREE sHIPPING

====== http://www.ongoin.com====