My first reaction to Brown’s plans announced today for constitutional reform, was to be pleasantly impressed. An end to some elements of the royal prerogative, such as institutionalising Commons votes before going to war, had seemed unavoidable for quite a while. But he went further than that, also ending the Prime Minister’s role in appointing Church of England bishops (you only need to say it to see how ridiculous it is in 2007), and opening up some key appointments to Parliamentary scrutiny. He has a long track record on some of this territory and I am prepared to accept that some of it is founded on genuine belief. And he even talked of ‘a Bill of Rights’ and a written constitution. There was nothing concrete on PR for the House of Commons, but some mood music suggesting it might possibly be on the cards.
But then I realised that we’d been here before. Have a look at this. In late 2003 - about half way through the last Parliament, as we are now in this - Blair suddenly announced that he was going to review the case for PR again. Many of us interpreted it as that Blair wasn’t really interested in doing it, but just wanted to put down a marker as an insurance policy in case he needed the Lib Dems after the next General Election. It was never heard of again, and since the result of the 2005 General Election was quite clear, it never needed to be resurrected.
Gordon Brown now seems to have done something very similar. Nothing concrete, written in blood, or even in ink - so all thoroughly deniable if he chooses (saying one thing on the record but having his spinners imply it might mean something more is a very Gordon Brown technique - anyone who thinks he marks a new departure from a culture of spin needs their head examining).
He may or may not pursue PR, but that will entirely depend on whether he thinks he needs to for his own purposes, and have absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of a ‘public debate’ (kicking difficult issues into the long grass where everyone just talks themselves into exhaustion is another very Brown technique - just ask Sir Michael Lyons). The ”˜route map not a blueprint’ line serves his interests very well indeed.
But what it also does for him is potentially tie up people who are actually interested in this agenda, principally the Liberal Democrats, in yet another long drawn out process, probably leading nowhere (as Nick Robinson asks, where is it a ‘route map’ to?). Most of all it would create an impression that the Lib Dems are dependent on Brown for their prospects. This serves him very well, but not us.
He has just become Prime Minister, and if he really wanted to put PR, or any of these real steps, properly on the agenda, he could just do it. Yes, there would be opposition in his own party to introducing PR, but the same is at least as true for having Lib Dems in his cabinet without needing to, and that didn’t seem to hold him back from trying that a couple of weeks ago.
We must not be sucked in by this. If he wants to introduce PR - great, let him do it. I’m sure he would be able to count on Lib Dem support to speed it through the lobbies. But we should not allow ourselves to have our hopes raised - and our attention and credibility compromised - yet again by some insubstantial spectre almost leading us only up the garden path. If he were still with us, you could just ask Roy Jenkins about that one.
New Labour have now vaguely raised the prospect of electoral reform, in an un-pin-down-able, non-committal way, in each of their three Parliaments in power. This third time, let’s not get drawn into it.
July 4th, 2007 at 10:24
A very perceptive warning, Jeremy!
July 4th, 2007 at 14:14
I think electoral reform is a bit of a red herring to be honest. The only commitment they’ve made is to publish the review that they promised to hold in 2001, promised again in 2005 and have been keeping secret ever since.
Electoral reformers have enough scars on their backs to be well aware of the dangers of Prime Ministers offering attractive looking garden paths. But Gordon Brown hasn’t offered one, and I suspect he is well aware that it wouldn’t work if he did.
The wider agenda, which you’ve downplayed, is much more interesting. Again however, there is a risk of it going nowhere however. That is precisely why Unlock Democracy launched its campaign for a Citizens’ Convention Bill last week, and why we will continue to push for a process that isn’t in the hands of government ministers.
July 4th, 2007 at 15:45
Thanks for comments.
James – obviously I hope you are right. I agree that PR isn’t on the table at the moment, but it does seem to be being waved around it with some hints that it might actually be placed on the table at some point. And unfortunately I am not sure that everyone is as resolutely sceptical about Brown’s hints and non-hints in relation to it as you obviously rightly are!
Obviously I hope the Citizens Convention initiative achieves its aims!
July 4th, 2007 at 19:26
To be clear, I think there are two issues here. One is that a number of Labour politicians are indeed actively trailing electoral reform as a possible way forward. However, at all times they are keen to stress that they are only referring to AV. Indeed, the PR-lobby within Labour have been going backwards recently with both Jon Cruddas and Alan Johnson doing all that they can to go back into the closet on the issue.
This issue is particularly tempting to a number of Lib Dem MPs and others who were never bothered by PR in the first place. Simon Hughes for example is very much anti PR and Chris Rennard, while more cautious about what he says in public, has often stated that he agrees that AV should be introduced as a “first step” (the fact that it could lead to a less representative chamber is not a concern). There clearly are Lib Dems who will find this prospect tempting.
The “trap” in my view is not that Labour are dangling an idea in front of the Lib Dems only to snatch it away again, but that they are indeed serious about AV (for self-preservation reasons!) but that both the Lib Dems and the electoral reform movement may have a civil war over whether to go along with it or not. Speaking personally, I would need a lot of convincing and I’m not even sure that it will help Labour secure a 4th/5th term due to its nasty habit of exaggerating swings.