Big Sticks and Small Carrots

The Tories are suggesting that the solution to the West Lothian Question is to introduce English only votes on English matters. Oh dear.

First of all, let’s correct a myth regarding this. It is simply not true that English MPs do not have the right to vote on Scottish matters. Westminster retains the right to vote on Scottish issues and can overrule the Scottish parliament or even abolish it if the votes are there. For an informed analysis of the problem with English votes on English matters and on the West Lothian Question in general, you might want to read this post from the Sharpener archives.

That post has inspired (and by that I mean I’ve shamelessly copied) the following scenario on this proposed solution to a problem which doesn’t actually exist.

Consider the possibility that the Tories have a majority in England but Labour have an overall majority. It’s happened before and it’s very likely to happen again.

It’s Prime Ministers Questions. The Labour Prime Minister is ready at the dispatch box. A Lib Dem from an English constituency asks a question about a hospital in that constituency. The introduction of a new policy is causing problems and the MP is not happy. The Tories have a majority on English health, the new policy is their new policy. You can’t seriously expect hold the Labour PM to account for that.

…run around….

All the Tories cross the floor to sit on the government benches while all the Labour MPs move to the opposition side. The Scottish MPs leave the chamber.

The Tory Prime Minister (for England) answers the question. The next question is from a Plaid Cymru MP. It’s on foreign affairs.

… run around…

It’s not workable, is it? The policy sounds sensible but it’d effectively create another separate government for England which wouldn’t necessarily be run by the majority party in parliament. That way, chaos lies.

But something does have to be done. Whether the system as it currently stands is unfair on the English is open to debate. The perception south of the border that it is unfair is not. Neither is the growing resentment that this perception is generating.

What’s the answer then?  Now that’s a question.

I was busy doing this and that yesterday, trying to nail jelly to butterflies can be a time consuming task, so I didn’t spend as much time writing about the Scottish election fiasco as I’d have like to in an ideal world.

It was this lack of time which led to me incorrectly claiming that Brown had not pointed out that the report “scrupulously sought to avoid” allocating blame. I wasn’t paying proper attention. To correct that error, let me just state here that Brown did indeed quote the relevant section of the report. I can’t quite see how he thought it’d help him with the line he was trying to spin but he did do it. I withdraw my erroneous claim and apologise for making it.

On the wider point, after I’d written the post I did find the time to write, I got round to reading a blog post about the situation by Brian Taylor, BBC Scotland’s political editor. He correctly points out that we shouldn’t exaggerate the scale of the problem and ought to stay calm about the whole thing.

This got me thinking as to whether my post yesterday had been just a tiny bit shrill. These thoughts were amplified when I saw that a fair number of people seemed to have lost all sense of perspective and were busy suggesting that the UK was comparable with Burma in the comments to Gordon Brown’s CiF article on the situation there. That ridiculous comparison does an injustice to the people of Burma.

The UK is clearly not a banana republic. Nevertheless, on reflection, I’m happy with my post. This is partly because it was obviously an attempt at a humorous approach to the situation. More importantly, there’s a line in Brain Taylor’s post which helped clarify my thoughts. In relation to the conclusions which can be drawn from Gould’s report, Brian said:

The prime concern of politicians was . . . politicians. Quite.

In one sense that’s a perfectly fair comment. Who could really be surprised that an independent report into the behavior of politicians would discover such a thing?

It does not follow from that, however, that we should not be outraged when our elected representatives put their own interests above those of the people. We shouldn’t, and especially not when they’re playing self-serving partisan politics with something as fundamental as the workings of the democratic process.

We all know it happens and it’s probably safe to assume that we all think it shouldn’t. There’s an interesting debate to be had about whether there’s much that can be done to stop this sort of thing but one thing is for certain: simply accepting that politicians behave in this way and suggesting that it isn’t all that big a deal will only benefit the worst culprits and make them believe that they can get away with more of the same. No carrots, no sticks, just as you were. In fact, adopting a relaxed attitude to this example of partisan hackery doing damage to the democratic process is only likely to lead to a lot more of this sort of behaviour in the future.

Brian is right that we should keep this in perspective. But we shouldn’t simply shrug our shoulders and just accept it when politicians play self-serving partisan politics with the democratic process. If we do that, we definitely will get the politicians we deserve.

PMQs today really was a lively affair. The report into the Scottish election fiasco has certainly put the cat among the pigeons. It’s even got me swearing a little bit.

I’ve skimmed through the report (pdf). Here are some of the issues it raises.

What is characteristic of 2007 was a notable level of party self interest evident in Ministerial decision-making (especially in regard to the timing and method of counts and the design of ballot papers). The timing and impact of policy decisions taken by Ministers also seem to be a critical factor… While prescribing all elements of electoral legislation remains a legislative function, Ministers will always need to take some decisions on elements of electoral administration. However, as in other areas of public life, these can and should be taken with the voters’ interests as the primary objective, supported by publicly available professional and expert advice. This appears not to have been the case in 2007.

Would anyone like a banana? We’ve got lots.

During our consultations with stakeholders, it became clear that both the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive were frequently focused on partisan political interests in carrying out their responsibilities, overlooking voter interests and operational realities within the electoral administration timetable.

Voters eh? They’re a bloody inconvenience, I tell you…

It has become increasingly clear that too much political debate was associated with the design of the Scottish parliamentary and local government ballot papers. Regarding the Scottish parliamentary ballot papers, months of partisan political discussion and debate wasted valuable time which could otherwise have been used to establish a ballot paper which all voters could easily understand.

Bananas in pyjamas…

The use of ‘naming strategies’ by political parties to seek an advantageous position on the regional side of the Scottish parliamentary ballot sheet was raised consistently as a problem by many electoral stakeholders and those who responded to the public consultation.

It’s democracy Jim, but not as we know it.

It is said that people get the politicians they deserve. It appears then that we Brits must be a right shower of shits.

Gordon Brown took pains to point out that the report did not allocate blame to one political party or individual and it is true that the report highlights more than just the failures of Labour ministers. The naming strategies employed by the various parties, as noted above, is one area in which other political parties played their part.

What Brown failed to mention, however, was this:

Throughout the Review, however, we have had no intention of – and, in fact, have scrupulously sought to avoid – assigning blame to individuals and institutions or questioning the legitimacy of the 3 May 2007 election results.

Allocating blame was never in the remit of the report. Isn’t it just a tiny bit disingenuous then to suggest that the report’s failure to do so somehow indicates a clean bill of health?

Have a banana. We’ve got lots.

Update

A minor correction. Brown did mention the last passage quoted above. He then, bizarrely, continued to suggest that the report somehow proved that no blame could or should be allocated by anyone else either.