Constitutional Reform
I happen to think this is the fundamental issue on the political agenda, although in economic uncertainty this issue does not rank high in voters concerns.
Labour’s record on Constitutional issues is quite good. It has given us devolution and City Mayors. Of course it has overdone big government and is wedded to the idea that for every problem only a new law or regulation is needed. It has been slow to roll back the excesses of the market economy, especially in energy distribution and power generation. But it senses that the old way is past and that fundamental changes will have to come about over the way we are governed. This will mean a new voting system which ensures, at the very least, that those elected can only be so with a majority of the votes. This will almost certainly mean the end of single party government for most of the time, with coaltion concensus, common elsewhere, much more common here.
Above all we need a written Constitution. Many in the Establishment oppose this because it would remove from it the vast power and patronage it presently enjoys, by manipulating things behind the scenes and making up rules to fit the objective. A written Constitution empowers the People and is a basic requirement of Freedom under the Law. Again Labour says it is in favour of this, but whether its massive bureaucratic consultative machinery would ever be able to produce a timely draft remains to be seen.
In this context the vote in the House of Commons last night, though maybe no more than symbolic because of the approaching General Election, was a first step in the right direction which will have widespread support in the country, although as already stated, it is not a priority for most voters now. The Government majority of over a hundred and seventy demonstrates cross party appeal. Except the Conservatives.
This is another reason not to vote for them. To suppose we can carry on being governed by parties with a Commons majority based on a minority of votes somewhere in the mid to upper thirties leaving the choice of sixty per cent plus of the voters in opposition is not only undemocratic and unfair, but it is also the cause of a good deal of the bad government we have experienced over decades. This brings home the truth that just as Labour is the party of the Unions, the Tories are the party of the Establishment. The is peculiar feature of our ruling system is against change. Thatcher’s genius was that she detached the Tories from the establishment and made them radical. She then had a coalition of the liberal establishment and the aspirational classes. After the Lady came the wilderness years of many leaders and little headway. Now Cameron, a quintessential establishment figure, looks set to lead the party once more into government. Or does he?
So far in this campaign the Tories began laps ahead, but have since been steadily losing ground, part through blunders and muddles but part through a lack of clarity of what it is they stand for or what it is they actually intend to do. Early winning messages of robust fiscal management and re balancing the economy have been contradicted and diluted.There is a gowing feeling that these people are not up to it. Even the City is spooked.
Although thus far much has been lost, all is not yet lost. But there can be no more errors of judgement. However unrealistic the prospect of legislation, the Bill to offer some reform of the way we vote is in tune with public sentiment. To vote against it was not only a mistake but shows the Tories to be in touch only with each other and out of touch with everybody else. For Cameron to make a speech on Monday about restoring trust in politics and then on Tuesday to vote against a Bill giving the public a choice of choosing a fairer voting system, shows him to be either a cynic or an imbecile. Neither are ideal qualities for an aspiring Prime Minister.