Blog 2023 Malcolm Blair-Robinson

Tribal Politics

One trouble, out of many, of the first  past the post system is that it is not only designed for two adversarial parties, but it leads to tribal politics, historically based on ideology. People proudly declare they have voted for a particular party all their lives. There will therefore have been times when they were voting for bad policies as well as good ones.

With multi-party politics there is a different culture. Here the division is caused by issues, policies and personalities.  All of theses have to match up to gain support.  The drive is not to seek dissent but to find accord.  When coalition agreements are negtotiated, they are about agendas and policies on which all agree, at least for the post part. There is a greater feeling of us than there is of them.

In this country our national politics are tribal and it is for this reason that there will be some very emotional people in both Tory and Lib Dem ranks. Yet Cameron has an affinity with Clegg, describing himself as a Liberal Conservative, on the Andrew Marr Show today. That could be one of the most profound statements made in a political generation. It will be interesting to see where it leads. Not into the arms of Lord Tebbit, that’s for sure.

The other thing about multi-party politics is that the smaller parties do switch sides. It is perfectly possible for the Lib Dems to go with the Tories this time, but with Labour next time. This would be more likely with Milliband David than Milliband Ed. There would be howls of treachery from the tribal heartlands but the message would be that the days of tribes are over. Cameron and Clegg see that. Many of their followers do not.

Confusion

At lunchtime today I listened to Any Questions, a recording of Friday evening’s live broadcast. There was a very distinguished panel of Parliamentarians, old and new. There was a question about the 55% vote for dissolution, should the proposal for five year fixed term parliaments, almost universally welcomed, become law. None of the panelists showed any clear sign of understanding the issue and all talked a good deal of nonsense. The facts, once again, are these.

Under the Constitution, no matter who votes for what or in which proportion, the only person with power to dissolve parliament is the Queen, because we live in a Monarchy, however it is dressed up. By convention she delegates her powers to her Prime Minister. By convention if he loses a vote of confidence in the Commons he must go to her and offer his resignation. She would then either accept it or ask him to form another government. If he failed to get another vote of confidence with this new government, she would accept his resignation and take advice as to who else might form a government. If a new Labour leader, having won some bye-elections, reckoned he could have a go because the Lib Dems had jumped ship and if he were successful, this new government would carry on for the remainder of the unexpired portion of the five year term. If it became clear that there was nobody who could get a vote of confidence through, the Queen would dissolve parliament.

Parliament cannot pass any kind of law to dissolve itself. It can pass a law binding the Prime Minister to seek a dissolution from the Queen if it asks him to, on whatever majority it sets. It amounts to no more than window dressing since the law itself could be overturned at any time by a simple majority of one. This really is an argument about nothing.

The Euro

I have always been rather ambivalent about the Euro. This Blog is about to take a position which requires focus on the issues. The upside of the single currency for the EU is that everybody can trade on even terms with everybody else and business can operate without the costs and risks of fluctuating currencies. There is a huge, business, commercial and tourism advantage.  I remember many years ago driving across Europe to get to the Tyrol, high in the mountains between Austria and Italy. The route took me through nine countries each with its own currency. I became an advocate for just the one after that.

The downside is that there is a flip side to what a currency is. It is the product of the economic structure, values, social and taxation policies and aspirations of the country of which it is the legal money in circulation. If it is one country that is fine. If it is lots of countries there a problems. If those countries have diverse conditions, traditions, values and assets as well as wealth creation capability, it becomes unworkable and sooner or later it must fall.

There are reports of a Sarkozy moment when he raged at Merkel and threatened if Germany did not pay up to help Greece, France would pull out of the Euro. That would be bad. If Germany refused to pay and itself pulled out of the Euro and went back to the Deutschmark, which is almost certainly what the majority of Germans want, it would be a calamity. The only solution is for there to be one Federal Economic Council controlling all financial policy in Euroland, leaving the nation states no more control of their economic affairs than individual States in the U.S.

This council would be dominated by Germany , whose support would be required for every significant decision.  Many governments in Europe, especially the smaller ones, may favour such a step, but there is now hardly a population of any nation in Europe which would vote for that in a referendum other than Germany. It is not likely to happen.

If it does not the Euro is doomed. It could well be that, after all, the preferred British vision of Europe, as a Union of Nation States operating independently and in competition, but without trade barriers and in common political purpose, will be the vision which inspires the model on which all finally unite to fashion.

Dissolution on 55%

There is a good deal of political, academic and legal noise building up over this. If you take it literally as an unchangeable statute, it is unsustainable. If you treat it as a current plan to guide the Prime Minister, who by moving to a fixed term Parliaments of 5 years has given up his right to seek a dissolution early, on what to do if a dissolution is after all the best course, then it is fine but pointless.

 This is because there is a difference between a Constiutional Convention for which there is no established mechanism to vary (a written Constitution would provide for ammendments subject to conditions of approval) and Laws or Stautes, which can be varied at any time. Thus it is certainly within Cameron’s remit as Prime minister, invested with all the Royal Prerogative powers, to push  a  Bill through both Houses saying that he will not ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament unles 55% of the Commons tell him to, but this could be overturned by another variation at any time. The idea of a fixed term parliament is that it cannot be dissolved early otherwise there would be no point in it.  

The only person, in fact, in law and under whatever Constitution we do actually have, with the power to dissolve parliament is the Queen. She can do this whenever she likes. In practice she does it only if asked to do so by Her Prime Minister. The Prime Minister does so only if an opportunity for a renewed mandate is spotted or if the five year term runs out and is not extended by both the Commons and Lords voting for an extension. If a law is passed removing the power of the Prime Minister to exercise the Royal Prerogative, it does not mean that the said Royal Prerogative ceases to exist.

It is in these arguments that the extraordinary constitutional position of this country is laid bare. There is much talk that Parliament is Sovereign. In a democracy the People are Sovereign. Our country was, is and remains a Monarchy. In a Monarchy, the monarch, only the monarch, is Sovereign. A whole plethora of customs and practices dilute that sovereignty and lend it to a parliament, elected by the people. It is high time that all of this was written down and approved by the people. A written Constitution cannot be long delayed. 

Meanwhile the declaration by this brave new coalition government that it will press on for five years and pass a bill to that effect is welcome. It can reach whatever agreement it wishes between the participating parties concerning its own break-up. It cannot legally bind Parliament itself on the matter of its dissolution, simply because Parliament has no power in the matter whatsoever. That remains, whatever it does, with the Queen. She will act only upon the advice of her Prime Minister. Whoever he or she is. Parliament can restrain that person, but not empower them. Power, all of it, comes from the Queen. 

This is what a Monarchy is. It is also why many countries prefer a Republic.

Foreign Policy

William Haig is off to the US immediately to meet Hilary Clinton for talks. This is very good news. Hilary should be impressed. Haig has the potential to be the best British foreign secretary for some time. This blog has always followed the theme of my book to urge a more independent foreign policy than that of the New Labour era, which is less focussed on the U.S. Present circumstances demand some revision of that position.

Obama and Clinton are steadily gaining in prestige and the U.S is now following a more enlightened and pragmatic foreign policy that for decades. This is very good news and already tensions are easing. However in the U.S itself there is still a neo-con agenda, there are woeful voices like Palin and Bolton still to be heard, all proclaiming a message which is simplistic, naive and dangerous in equal measure. Obama and the voices of reason need unstinting support.  We should now offer that, coupled with realistic appraisal of what can and cannot be done in the areas of difficulty and in particular those where troops of both nations sacrifice their lives daily. 

America has become more relaxed with Russia and we should follow suit and find an end to the spat over Litvinenko’s murder, even if we have to agree to differ. Israel is no longer getting a free ride in Washington and we should support that. We should kick out Blair from his Middle East role where he is a complete waste of time and put in somebody who can get some progress. 

We must talk about Afghanistan very seriously. The present policy is very similar to the Russians’, which failed and the American policy in Vietnam, which failed there. The idea that the Afghanistan is prevented from going over to Al Qaeda is futile. If we sterilize Afghanistan they go into Pakistan and destabilise that rather fragile nuclear power, or off they go to regroup in Yemen or wherever.  Moreover the Karzai government is impossibly corrupt, delivers rotten government and will be overthrown as soon as we leave by the Taliban, aided by the security forces we have trained and equipped, who will follow tradition and change sides. There is no mileage in the current  policy which is not a realistic strategy. It is wishful thinking. It is not worth brave lives. New thinking is needed.

The Constitution.

Both in my book, in this blog and in a separate campaign, most of which through lack of media interest goes on behind the scenes, I have pressed for a clearer understanding of our Constitution and ultimately one which is written down. Some controversey is now breaking out over the coalition proposal to introduce a 55% rule to dissolve parliament.

Parliament has no power to dissolve itself, by whatever method or vote. The plain fact of the matter is this country is presently structured as a monarchy with absolute power. That power is then delegated to the monarch’s government. The government must have the backing of parliament, either because it has a majority, or because the majority allows it to govern. It has become customary for the Queen and her modern predecessors to grant a Prime Minister’s request for dissolution. This is made either if the government loses a vote of confidence or if the government sees potential electoral advantage in going to the country for a new mandate.

The introduction of fixed term parliaments, as opposed to the current arrangement of parliaments with a maximum term, creates a situation where governments can change without a dissolution. This means that a loss of a confidence vote by one party or coalition of parties, would not cause the Queen to summon a new parliament, merely to summon a different member of parliament who could command a majority, to form a new government. This government would serve only until the end of the fixed term.

In present circumstances it is possible to envisage a situation where over the first two years or so with a raft of very unpoular measures arising from the extremity of the economic crisis, ten bye-elections occur in which Labour gains all the seats from the Tories. Labour would be then be able, in coalition with the Lib Dems, the SDLP and the Alliance to have a majority and form a government. This would  require the Lib Dems to change sides, unlikely now, but possible in theory. This provides the tension and drives up the standards of government, again in theory, of mixed party government. Willi Brandt’s first Social Democrat government in West Germany came to power when the Free Democrats, in coalition with the Christian Democrats, changed sides.

With a fixed term parliament, the question arises as to whether it should have the power to dissolve itself at all. I am not sure it should. If it did the mechanism has to be some sort of vote that requires the prime minister and the government to resign and go to the Queen for dissolution. The government itself should fall on a simple majority of one vote. If Parliament is to deny itself the right to form another government, there surely has to be a  sizable majority of turkeys voting for Christmas. The Coalition proposes 55%.  It is a good point. It may not get through. It is doubtful whether it would be Constitutional anyway. Maybe the answer is to have a fixed term parliament without the provision of self dissolution. After all, in law, the Queen has the right and the power to dissolve parliament whenever the fancy takes her.

Hitherto she and her forbears have done this only when her Prime Minister has requested this.The time has perhaps come to end that arrangement altogether. If the power of self dissolution is given to parliament it may be wiser to go with the arrangement for keeping parliament sitting, as in 1940, when the general election  was postponed until the end of the war in 1945. For Parliament to extend itself, a clear majority is required in both Houses, Commons and Lords. It would be neat to have the same provision to end itself. 

In practice the two party system creates a kind of tribalism which drifts far from the needs of good  government and the aspirations of the governed. Once there are more than two parties in play, loyalty is driven much more by objectives and outcomes. This is a more vibrant model of democracy and engages the participation of the governed in a  more specific way which is much more judgemental of the politicians themselves. Politicians will not like it, because they will be judged on what they do, more than what they are.

Our Constitution is flexible enough to cope with this, largely because so long as the Queen agrees, it can do almost anything, and she will agree if parliament approves. Missing from this equation are the people. They have no clear protection of their democratic rights nor any clear definition of what they are. All they have is a franchise of who can vote and a maximum length of time between being given those opportunities. This is why we need Constitutional, Political and Electoral reform. The responsibility to oversee this has been given to the Deputy Prime Minister. Nick Clegg has a lot to do.

What Has Really Happened

This country has a Coalition Government. Statistics and historical parallels fly thick and fast. Those of us enthralled by the process of its making have spent several days in front of our TV sets staring at doorways until deep into the night. Earnest and tight lipped negotiators came and went. Commentators talked of agreements being ‘hammered out’. At last triumphant, but politely restrained, LibDems poured through a doorway into the darkness here, while philosophical Tories poured through another, there. We were all past caring where. A deal had been done and approved.

In the morning it was Downing Street and the most famous Door of All. Along comes Nick. Dave is on the steps waiting. Hugs and stuff and then to business. We remain cynical perhaps. We still don’t get it. Then it is the Rose Garden. Sorry that is the White House. Here it is just the Garden.  Suddenly before our eyes. The two of them together. Every correspondent who bore witness tells of it. There was a political earthquake.

It was all at last clear. All those meetings  were details, necessary, but a sideline. The meetings where It All Happened were in secret, only rumoured. They were between Nick and Dave alone. And in those meetings they discovered something about each other. Their politics, their aspirations and their sense of direction for all of us were identical. Cameron was a Lib Dem. Clegg was a Tory. Or the other way. Because in their  terms both are the same.

This is not the Liberalism of Ashdown nor the Toryism of Thatcher. Nor is it the Social Democracy of Jenkins, hijacked  by Blair.This is a New Politics, Clegg’s words but used by Cameron. The word Progressive was everywhere. This new political grouping commands a majority of 82 seats and a majority of 5.4 million poular votes. It has chemistry, freshness and focus. It knows what it must do. Moreover it has a moderate  majority within itself. Both leaders know that their nutters of right and left are marginalised.

The great figures of British political history of the last century who stand out for the change they wrought in the alignment and direction of their parties are LLoyd George, Attlee, Churchill, Thatcher and Blair. Not all did well with the change they wrought. We must wish upon Dave and Nick that their historic endeavour succeeds. We all depend upon it.

Leadership and Generalship

David Cameron has shown outstanding leadership qualities in the last few days. He has put together not a fudge and dodge government which this blog feared, but a real full blown coalition of war-time proportions reflecting a popular vote of 17.5 million and nearly 60%. This is a true majority government. Moreover it is not founded on a nod, a wink and a handshake. There is a full, detailed and comprehensive document setting out the whole framework of policy. This is truly remarkable as well as unexpected. The many tensions on both sides from narrow issue backbench MPs will be under much tighter rein than any could have predicted. To push all this through a Tory party both triumphant and disappointed at the same time is a Cameron triumph. This is all without precedent.

But who is the really the star? This must be Nick Clegg. His political footwork outclasses anything seen in British politics before. With tiny forces, but a hefty popular mandate of 6.8 million votes, showing generalship of outstanding flair, he got between two vast armies, neutralised one, drove  a great warrior from the field and extracted from the other concessions that wrought in its entirity his bold, often ridiculed, plan for a ‘new type of politics’

On May 6th this Blog reviewed the three main campaigns, while the country voted. At the end it listed three possible surprises. The first was a clear Tory majority. The second was Labour ahead on both votes and seats. The third was described as more of a dream. Prime Minister Clegg. Oops not quite right. It is Deputy Prime Minister Clegg.

This Blog was right, however, again and again and long before the TV debates, when it spoke of a Lib Dem opportuity. The phrase used was balance is power. Now you can see what it means.

Labour Exit

Whatever the outcome of the talks, this Blog now takes a position. A deal with Labour cannot work. The party is in some disarray, speaking with many voices, not even united in the desire to stay on. There appears to have been no attempt to consult the MP’s or any part of the party’s organisation. Without the numbers this would be a disaster. Labour now has to go into dry dock for a refit.

The Lib Dems have consulted their party’s organisation at all points and the Tories likewise their MPs. More of this tonight. One thing we now know for sure. David Cameron will be Prime Minister by the end of tomorrow. The only question to be answered is whether it will be a coalition with the Lib Dems or a minority confidence and supply arrangement. Any government is safe until at least the autumn, when Labour gets a new leader. It cannot fight an election without one.

I doubt that even history will ever agree about Gordon Brown. He can gain comfort from the knowledge that his party gained 400 new councillors last Thursday and took control of 14 councils. That is a good straw to have in the wind. He may feel the  need to clutch it tightly.

Talks Latest

It is now obvious that the nature of the Labour party as presently constituted in the Commons after its defeat makes it impossible to deliver a deal with the Lib Dems which would work. Too many want to keep first past the post. More important the old hands know that the biggest bucket of do do in political history may very well tip over the new government and opposition in a hung parliament in the present financial crisis is the clever place to be.

The Lib Dems now have just a few more hours to agonise. Should they go into a government for the first time since 1940? Churchill by the way was not elected and became Prime Minister exactly 70 years ago. Clegg will have achieved a spectacular milestone. The problem is, if things go wrong, it may be the Lib Dems last. Clegg has proved himself a shrewd and nimble political operator. That may lead him to the conclusion that the right road is with Labour, but in opposition. Let the Tories through the Queen’s speech then let them sail as bet they can, waiting to sink them when a re-vitalised newly led Labour is ready to fire the torpedo.