Thursday, 12 July 2012

Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing


 I don’t think I’ve ever voted with such enthusiasm as I did in last year’s Alternative Vote (AV) referendum.  I voted NO, the most delightful negative ever.  If there were a thousand such referenda I would vote no time and time again.  It was supposedly about introducing ‘fairness’ into our electoral system.  What rot!  Part of the present Coalition deal, it was a way of allowing the Liberal Democrats to be kingmakers for ever and a day.  It was about the strange revival of Liberal England.  How glad I was to put the beast back in its coffin!

Not content with that, Nick Clegg and his gang went forward with another piece of constitutional vandalism; they went ahead with proposals for ‘reform’ of the House of Lords.  The aim here is to turn our venerable and unelected upper chamber into a kind of senate, selected on the basis of – guess what – proportional voting. 

Just imagine the political chaos that would ensue.  The House of Commons could no longer claim unsullied primacy.  An upper house elected on the basis of AV or any proportional system would give the Liberal Democrats disproportional influence.  In any deadlock with the Commons their Senate could claim greater electoral legitimacy.  Clegg’s placemen, moreover, would have fifteen year tenures, a greater opportunity for abuse and the insolence of office I find impossible to imagine, a modern form of the old Whig supremacy.  It all comes down to one thing: this shabby and debased party would have its grubby hands forever on the wheels of power.

It’s obvious that David Cameron has no stomach to this fight, but he dare not depart.  Nick Clegg, huffing and puffing like the petulant schoolboy he is, is threatening to derail the necessary changes to the boundaries of Parliamentary constituencies if he does not get his way on the House of Lords.  But - thank goodness – there is still enough backbone in the Conservative Party.  A sufficient number of Tory MPs have rejected his childish attempts at blackmail.  The bill, like a ball, has been kicked into touch!

Clegg, with Cameron in tow, had intended to hammer ‘reform’ through Parliament with a minimum of debate, an absolute disgrace considering the constitutional importance of the proposed change, one of the most important in our history.  But, in the face of rebellion within the Tory ranks, coupled with the Labour Party’s opposition to a foreclosure on debate, the government was forced to drop a timetable motion. 

On Tuesday the bill passed its second reading, with close on a hundred Tories voting against. It passed alright, but it’s now going to be a narrative as long as the tale of the Ancient Mariner.  Threatening to derail the rest of the government’s legislative programme, it is likely also to be a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing

Cameron, Mister Whichever Way the Wind Blows, now says he will try to “proceed with consensus”.  To echo the words of Iain Martin in the Telegraph, good luck with that.  Saying consensus, consensus, when there is no consensus; there will never be consensus on this ill-conceived, badly thought-out and wholly unnecessary legislation.  Change of this magnitude should be approached with great caution, not on the whim of the Liberal Democrats, the permanent political also rans. 

The real shocker here, though, is not Clegg, acting on his own debased principles, but Cameron, who, for the sake of office, was prepared to push through a measure that neither he nor a goodly part of his own party believe in.  What kind of man is this, what kind of Conservative and, most important of all, what kind of Prime Minister?  There he was, waving the reform flag albeit in a limp-handed manner.  There he was, prepared to destabilise the constitution and our system of government.  There he was, offering support to a bill no matter the damage or the consequences.  All this for what exactly?  All this for Clegg. 

In the Telegraph Martin described Clegg as a “third rate Tony Blair: an unhistorical and restless progressive seeking relentlessly to apply his abstract agenda, with pious, cliché-ridden petulance, to whichever institution he does not like the look of.”  He later retracted, saying that calling him a third rate Blair was overgenerous.  Yes, well, we are all permitted a slip twixt cup and lip. 

I hope the Conservative rebels continue their principled opposition to this unprincipled and opportunist bill.  I hope it really is, as one said, a ‘dead duck.  AV is dead; House of Lords ‘reform’ is dying.  Now let’s have a creeping barrage directed at gay marriage.  


16 comments:

  1. Looking for writing projects, Ana, you could do worse than an analysis of how much damage each liberal progressive alteration has caused to British polity since the 1911 Parliament Act. It might form the backbone of a critique that could start a reversal of the process that crushed the greatness out of Great Britain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent suggestion, Calvin. I shall give it some serious thought.

      Delete
  2. I'm going to greatly enjoy opponents of the Lords reform from all parties dragging this on and on and getting to the root of the real motivation which is, as you say, abiding Liberal Democrat influence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Much more needs to be made of this, Joe.

      Delete
  3. Ana, despite my being one of those rebellious Colonists, I agree - making that change to the House of Lords would be as big a mistake as what happened when our Senators ceased to be appointed by our state legislatures. That changed our Senate from being a fairly elite group of statesmen to being the mob's flavour of the day. Getting the mob's opinion on a frequent basis (every other year for the House of Reps) is one of those "necessary evils" associated w/having a Constitutional Republic, but we lost the calming effect on political passions (not to mention the direct influence of the individual states) our Senate used to provide.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CB, that's a great point, a dimension I had not considered.

      Delete
  4. Found you on bloggers.com

    following you .. would be happy to meet you on Plain Books

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Abhishek, I'll certainly have a look but I have to say that I'm spread a bit thin at the present.

      Delete
  5. Perhaps some supplemental testosterone would do D. Cameron some good.

    ReplyDelete
  6. For a look at how the shadow Gov. in the US operates, Google then WIKI The Northwoods Project.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "The real shocker here, though, is not Clegg, acting on his own debased principles, but Cameron, who, for the sake of office, was prepared to push through a measure that neither he nor a goodly part of his own party believe in. What kind of man is this, what kind of Conservative and, most important of all, what kind of Prime Minister? There he was, waving the reform flag albeit in a limp-handed manner. There he was, prepared to destabilise the constitution and our system of government. There he was, offering support to a bill no matter the damage or the consequences. All this for what exactly? All this for Clegg."

    And who, pray, gave any politician the right to change our constitution? You talk about the primacy of the HoC, Ana, but surely where our constitution is concerned we should also be concerned with the dictatorial aspects of the HoC; the lack of division twixt Executive and Legislature? Should we not also be concerned about the lack of democracy as, consider: There are approximately 120 Secretaries of State, Ministers, and PPS' - and probably about the same number waiting and hoping to become Secretaries of Stat, Ministers and PPS', so at a stroke that is two-thirds of the governing party of or hoping to be part of the Executive - and it is 240 approximately constituencies in which the electorate have in effect been disenfranchised.

    Politicians, per se, need a short sharp lesson in democracy, which from the derivation of the word translates as people rule.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WtW, yes absolutely; it's been a process of 'incorporation' that has been under way for some time. The delightful thing for me about last week's vote is that the legislature stood up and barked, forcing the executive to back off. I at least think it a significant development, a clear warning to Cameron that his Party can only be pushed so far and no further. It will be interesting to see the battles ahead.

      Delete
  8. Ana do you think Mr Clegg deserves the fate meted out in Apostle Rising?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, Richard, I couldn't possibly comment. :-))

      Delete