Semi-Partisan Politics

 

It’s mighty hard to defend the Labour Party’s current position on devolution and constitutional reform.

Most normal people would not call loudly for a United Kingdom constitutional convention unless they had a brightly shining idea – hell, at least a rough approximation – of what they wanted to come out of it.

And if the concept of EVEL – English Votes for English Laws – is one of those acceptable outcomes, why not simply say so and sidestep all of the criticism now coming their way from the Conservative Party, the media and the general population?

But the Labour Party was silent or dismissive of EVEL during today’s parliamentary debate on the ramifications of the Scottish independence referendum decision precisely because they intend to use a UK constitutional convention (or rather, the distant prospect of one) as a convenient means of burying EVEL forever and maintaining their already heftily unfair electoral advantage in perpetuity.

Watching Sadiq Khan, the Shadow Lord Chancellor, squirm as he tried to defend the indefensible – Labour’s craven, opportunistic desire to ensure that their Welsh and Scottish MPs continue to exert undemocratic influence on England-only legislation – was extremely awkward viewing.

As Khan expounded on his argument and squirmed through the many interventions, it became clear that absolutely no weasly argument was beneath him:

English regional devolution is the only proper counterpart to further Scottish devolution, and we should not distract ourselves with anything else.

EVEL will create “two classes” of Westminster MPs (conveniently ignoring the fact that it is the current system which is inequitable and a two-class system, not the proposed EVEL rectification).

The Evil Tories are only trying to appease wavering UKIP voters.

There aren’t really that many England-only bills decided in Parliament anyway, so why go through the hassle?

And finally, bizarrely, this assertion – Labour’s official stance on EVEL under Ed Miliband:

Rectifying a 30 year old constitutional imbalance and ensuring democratic equality among the citizens of the UK’s four home nations would somehow amount to a “top-down, Westminster stitch-up”.

As Khan continued his official response to William Hague’s entirely reasonable remarks, the various interventions and points of order hurled at him became more direct, pointed, hostile and ultimately incredulous.

The only relief enjoyed by Sadiq Khan came during those interventions by the SNP’s cohort of perpetually aggrieved MPs, who used their time to agitate for more discussion of the various perks and baubles promised to the Scottish Parliament (“The Vow”) by a desperate establishment in the closing days of the independence referendum debate.

No one in the chamber especially bathed themselves in glory. When the Liberal Democrats’ turn came, Michael Moore stood up and lamented that “if the West Lothian question was simple it would have been answered years ago”.

Not so. There are many self-evidently fair, equitable and beneficial ideas in British politics that have been ignored or quietly killed by our sclerotic Westminster political club over the years. And very few MPs attending the debate can say that they were drawing attention to Britain’s glaring constitutional anomalies and time bombs before the Scottish independence referendum debate made it fashionable to do so.

One MP more than happy to soak up the credit while simultaneously repelling any responsibility for failing to deal with historic issues is calamitous former prime minister Gordon Brown, who – shamefully, given his abysmal Parliamentary attendance since losing office – was accorded the honour of a time unlimited speech together with Hague, Khan and Moore.

Watching Gordon Brown brooding on the backbenches before his speech, it was difficult to decide whether it was a welcome sight given his vanishingly rare presence, or simply a tragedy – how much better off would the country have been if his haughty megalomania had never made it into Cabinet, or Number 10 at all?

Where Brown raised fair warnings about the Conservative proposals, he offered no convincing alternatives. At one point the former prime minister warned: “There is no state in the world, federal or otherwise, that devolves all income tax powers to its regions … and there are very good reasons why”. This is true, and is a drawback that would become immediately apparent in a UK constitutional convention – but it is insufficient reason to fail to make progress on EVEL in the meantime.

Brown also made a convoluted comparison with the United States Senate, where each state elects and sends two senators to the American upper chamber. Taking any lessons from the laughably named “world’s greatest deliberative body” is always dangerous, but looking at regional representation to the legislatures makes sense in the context of something like Lord’s reform, but not when it comes to deciding the nuts and bolts of which representatives are allowed to vote on what.

Typically of a Gordon Brown speech, it was heavy on compulsory redistribution. He continually talked about “pooling and sharing resources” within the United Kingdom – the phrase recurred several times. And perhaps here he exemplified the Labour Party’s attitude even better than Sadiq Khan, his frontbench colleague.

For Gordon Brown, there is never any talk of finding, creating or exploiting new resources – otherwise known as “expanding the pie”. Rather, it is always about dividing the existing pie differently, finding dull new “optimal” allocations of existing resources – usually between individuals, but today between the United Kingdom’s home nations.

Brown concluded: “You cannot have one United Kingdom if you have two classes of MPs”, shamelessly ignoring the fact that the presence of Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs in Westminster despite the existence of their own devolved assemblies has already created a two-class system – one in which the MPs representing 84% of the UK are the least among unequals.

Finally a convincing rebuttal to this wheedling point was made by Sir George Young, who brilliantly summed up some of the many ways in which Westminster MPs are already NOT equal:

Government ministers and MPs performing house duties are paid more.

Four MPs (including the Speaker) cannot vote.

Some MPs are allowed to initiate debates while others are not.

But it was the lesser-known Roger Gale MP who made perhaps the most valuable contribution to the debate, drawing attention to a widely derided proposal that he had first made 20 years previously:

It is more than 20 years since I first suggested the abolition of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I suggested at that time that we should have four national Parliaments for Scots, English, Welsh and Northern Ireland Members, each with a First Minister, and that we should then, to take the point made by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), have a United Kingdom senate. Therefore, although we would break up the nations, we would retain the United Kingdom, with the Queen as the Head of State, a Prime Minister for the United Kingdom and a senate that would deal exclusively with macro-taxation, foreign policy and defence.

Completely abolishing the House of Commons and House of Lords, together with their rich history and (some) tradition, seems to be going a bit far. Much better to shrink their size, while reserving to them only UK-wide powers of macroeconomic policy, foreign policy and defence. The four home nation national assemblies would then take care of everything else.

Such a proposal not only has the advantage of being entirely logical and easily explainable (compared to the tongue-tied difficulties most of us would get into if we had to explain our current constitutional arrangement to a foreigner), it would also be incredibly strong, robust and future-proof.

Under such a setup, Scotland could be free to drift in a more socially democratic direction, hiking up taxes and “sharing the wealth around” – just see how far it gets them. Wales and Northern Ireland could choose to do similarly, or watch and learn from Scotland and England and pick a different legislative course to suit their own local politics.

None of this would have to diminish the United Kingdom as a sovereign country. Under the United States Constitution, vast powers are reserved to the individual states, yet nobody thinks less of the United States as a powerful and influential country just because Texas and Massachusetts have sharply diverging approaches to education and healthcare.

Roger Gale’s twenty-year old idea, thrown in for discussion (with suitable amendments) at a UK constitutional convention, could be just what Britain needs to secure her long-term future, both in terms of territorial integrity and democratic legitimacy.

Which is, of course, precisely why nothing will happen.

Angry Tory MPs will hopefully force EVEL to a vote and put their calculating, disingenuous Labour counterparts on the spot, forcing them to vote against the motion and slap English voters in the face ahead of the May general election. It may or may not pass.

Ed Miliband’s spineless Labour Party may have a change of heart and agree to contribute to William Hague’s specially-formed cabinet committee, and bring real ideas for a constitutional convention and a solution to the West Lothian Question.

But given our British tendency to just muddle through and ignore the big questions – not to mention the many news cycles between now and May – don’t be surprised if English Votes for English Laws and real constitutional reform simply fall off the radar.