Starmer on Track
I thought Sir Keir Starmer’s speech to the Labour Party’s Conference was highly competent without being actually storming. The content was formulaic as were the routine standing ovations (are they pre-arranged?) but enough to suggest that a Labour government will be different without being merely Tory-lite.
Starmer put the “interruption” at the beginning to good use. It gave him an excuse to roll-up his sleeves – a better indication of being ready for the job than the hard hat and high-viz jacket Tories seem to prefer - and give the appropriate riposte that the party was now “ready for power, not just protest.” (I wonder if that incident was staged, too?)
There were several gibes at the antics of the party in recent years which he believed had made it unelectable. One previous leader. Ed Miliband, was present and I hope took it all in good part. The other Jeremy Corbyn was, I understand, not allowed to be present.
Although there was much to bring hope for the future (without much explanation, apart from taxing non-doms, as to how the future goodies were to be financed) there was an old-fashioned ring to much of the speech. Starmer emphasised his working class origins, there were repetitive references to “working people” (though happily he’s moved on from “hard-working families” but what about those who can’t work or don’t any longer?) Again and again “Conference” rather than “Comrades” was the preferred method of appealing to the audience but the undertones of “class war” are still there and are, I believe , an obstacle to modernising Britain.
Improvements in the NHS were a prominent feature (will the tax on non-doms be enough?) but it is to be “reformed.” (again, and again, and yet again? Just how many times? We need out medical staff to put their energies into curing us and keeping us healthy, not securing their positions in the next reformed hierarchy).
Unfortunately there was no mention of what actually is in desperate need of reform, the way we are governed . Nothing about electoral reform, making parliament more effective by, at the very least, giving it control of its own timetable etc To be fair, I think he did mention MPs doing only one job and doing it properly, along with limited devolution to local government, so there is modest movement in the right direction.
Most disappointingly economic growth is central to Labour’s aspirations, without any reference to the fact that, to avoid further frying the planet this must be sustainable and not unnecessarily ravage the earth’s scarce non-renewable resources. At a time when storms, floods and fires are making huge swathes of the earth uninhabitable this is a serious derogation of responsibility.
making parliament more effective by, at the very least, giving it control of its own timetable
ReplyDeleteParliament has control of its own timetable!
No it doesn't, the Executive controls it. That parliament itself should do so is one of the many modest reforms suggested in Ian Dunt's "How Westminster Works." Read the "Epilogue: solutions" chapter. Incidentally, blogspot will not allow me to comment under my own name (Peter Wrigley),or at all on the previous post.
ReplyDeleteNo it doesn't, the Executive controls it.
ReplyDeleteOnly because the Executive has a majority in the House of Commons. If there were ever a majority in the House of Commons that disagreed with how the Executive allocated its time then it could bring a motion of no confidence in the Government and replace the Executive.
So Parliament — by majority vote — does control its own timetable.
That means parliament can only discuss what it wants by defeating the government: a hammer to crack a nut, to be used only in a crisis. To be effective parliament needs to discuss any of the government's proposals it wishes on a day to day basis. That will lead to more effective government.
ReplyDeleteThat means parliament can only discuss what it wants by defeating the government: a hammer to crack a nut, to be used only in a crisis.
DeleteIt means that the Executive only governed as long as it retains that confidence of Parliament, but that as long as it retains said confidence, it can get on with governing without a committee of 650 trying to micromanage.
That will lead to more effective government.
No it won’t; it will lead to US-style gridlock where the executive and the legislature are at loggerheads. Our system is superior because we don’t get that kind of dysfunction, because in our system if the executive loses the confidence of the legislature the logjam is soon cleared by going back to the country — which is as it should be because ultimately it is the People who are sovereign, not Parliament.
We saw the kind of dysfunction that this would open the door to in 2017-2019 when a weak executive was held hostage by a Parliament that would neither allow it to govern nor allow an election (there should have been an election in 2018 as soon at it was clear that May’s plan did not have the consent of Parliament) — fortunately the Fixed Term Parliaments Act has been repealed so that precise situation can’t recur.
But fundamentally the government must be allowed to govern so long as it retains the confidence of Parlament, and then the People can render their verdict on the government.
What you have described is what the Tory grandee Lord Hailsham (ex-Quentin Hogg) dubbed an “elected dictatorship, but he came to the opposite conclusion to you. He argued, and events have proved him right, especially in recent years, that governments without adequate scrutiny become arrogant and inefficient. Governments subjected to and responsive to effective criticism are more effective. That is why the specialist select specialist committees are probably the only useful units of the House of Commons, If you read Dunt’s book you will see that the Sanding Committees, which scrutinise bills, are pretty useless and the Chamber itself is just a forum for posturing.
ReplyDeletegovernments without adequate scrutiny become arrogant and inefficient.
DeleteThey absolutely do. That’s why it’s so vital that we have a free press to scrutinise governments.
the Sanding Committees, which scrutinise bills, are pretty useless and the Chamber itself is just a forum for posturing
So the House of Commons is useless… and you want to give it more power to interfere with the executive?
Surely you can see that’s insane?
Not at all. It would be useful if it were allowed to be.
ReplyDeleteIt would be useful if it were allowed to be.
DeleteSeems unlikely, given the low quality of most MPs. What arguments have you for that?
But even if it were, the executive is answerable to the people, so the important thing is that we have a free press that can inform the people of what a government has done so that we can judge it; and equally important is that the people have the ability to chuck an underperforming government out of office when there is a better alternative available. This is why we must stick with the first-past-the-post system, as proportional voting systems make it much harder to kick a party out if government; see for example Germany, or the Republic of Ireland where the electorate tried to get rid of Varadkar but ended up with him back part-time (and also an example of the other failing of a proportional system, in that it gives minor parties a chance at power — there is a real chance that the IRA might end up in government).
Not all MPs are of "low quality" as the criticism of the specialist committees demonstrate.
ReplyDeleteNot all MPs are of "low quality"
DeleteThen why is scrutiny of legislation — which is, remember, Parliament's one job — so bad? Why has so much badly-drafted legislation been put onto the statute books since 1997, if not all MPs are of low quality?
Before Parliament tries to take on other jobs, it needs first to demonstrate that it can do its actual job, of legislating well and clearly, to an acceptable standard. Only once it does that can any further responsibilities even be considered.
Because legislation, along with many amendments, is drafted by the Government and MPs are not given enough opportunities to examine it thoroughly
ReplyDelete