Something has to be done about the Lords

The current Westminster parliamentary session ends on 26th March. Any Bills which have not completed all their parliamentary stages by then will in theory be lost, but in practice there is often agreement to carry Bills over to the next session. There are currently around 150 Bills before Parliament which have not received Royal Assent (there is a list here). I understand that the two House of Lords reform measures - the government Bill which the opposition, assisted by Tory rebels, refused to allocate time to, and Lord Steel's useful measure which would at least address some of the faults of the existing House of Lords - will be allowed by the government to fall. An opportunity at least to reduce the numbers of an overcrowded upper chamber would thereby be lost.

There are around 830 members of the House of Lords at present and the number is continuing to grow. It is interesting to compare the size now and the size before the Blair reforms. In 1970, for instance, there were 754 members (excluding minors, those who had not taken their seats, those on long-term leave of absence and royals, but including the law lords and 158 life peers).

(For the greater benefits of Lords Reform, read Paul Tyler's summing-up.)

It is tempting to see the failure of the three main party leaders to pursue any sort of reform as conspiracy. After all, elections to the upper house would remove powers of patronage. Think of all those superannuated Labour MPs bribed with a barony to give up their safe seats or the Tory donors rewarded with ermine. Even the Liberal Democrat leadership has not taken all its nominations from the people voted for by members.  I have been told, however, that is more likely the result of pure mismanagement.

That mansion tax motion

Today's Opposition motion in the House of Commons read: "That this House believes that a mansion tax on properties worth over £2 million, to fund a tax cut for millions of people on middle and low incomes, should be part of a fair tax system; and calls on the Government to bring forward proposals for such a tax at the earliest opportunity."

Note the tie to funding a tax cut. This is what caused Liberal Democrat MPs to refrain from supporting the motion. If Labour had omitted that clause, they might have been able to peel more of the rank-and-file away. LibDems in government were never going to support a tax policy which was not included in the coalition agreement, but back-benchers might have been tempted to support an unadulterated statement of LibDem policy.

There is some justification for directing the revenue to reducing the effects of inflation on benefits, for extra funding for public works - which Vince Cable appears to favour - or simply to reduce the public sector debt. Labour speakers indicated that they wanted to reintroduce the failed 10p starter rate of tax, which the IFS describes as "too complex". The coalition has already factored in a big increase in the personal income tax allowance and a 10p rate is not likely to feature in a future LibDem manifesto.

Bonuses

Earlier in the day, during questions to the Treasury team, this interchange took place:

Mr Hepburn [Stephen Hepburn, Jarrow (Labour)]:

Bankers’ bonuses are up £15 billion, executive boardroom pay is up by 27%, and the richest 1,000 people in this country have increased their wealth by £155 billion, yet there is still a tax cut on the way for the richest 1%. When is the Chancellor going to do something for the other 99% who are paying the bill to subsidise the lifestyle of his privileged chums?

Mr Osborne:

We are increasing the personal allowance for 24 million people. Bankers’ bonuses were £15 billion a year when the shadow Chancellor was City Minister, but they have come down to just over £1 billion—a dramatic reduction as we now have a more responsible financial sector.

This confirms my impression that Liam Byrne was talking through his posterior last week when he spoke of raising £1.3bn from a bankers' bonus tax. Only the most fervent socialist in the House would seriously consider a tax of more than 100%.

Perhaps the Beeb really is part of a LibDem conspiracy

I speculated yesterday that the corporation was deliberately not covering the political (as opposed to the personal) debates in Brighton to avoid embarrassing the leadership. As I type this, I have just watched a BBC relay of a lengthy speech by Theresa (note the "h") May at a Conservative Party Strategy Conference. It was a foretaste of the line to be taken by the Tories at the next general election. However, it will be taken as a leadership bid by Ms May, and its "dry" tone be seen as evidence of a reaction to David Cameron's avowed determination that the party will not lurch to the right.

It was not totally illiberal. However, the clear implication of her attack on the European Convention of Human Rights (not just the Human Rights Act) suggests that protection by the justice system will be limited to a favoured few. I was reminded of Meryl Streep's character in Rendition (2007), when defending the use of enhanced interrogation techniques by the US authorities:

Corrine Whitman: Honey, this is nasty business. There are upwards of 7,000 people in central London alive tonight, because of information that we elicited just this way. So maybe you can put your head on your pillow and feel proud for saving one man while 7,000 perish, but I got grandkids in London, so I'm glad I'm doing this job... and you're not. 

Sadly these views are shared by some MPs across the gangway from the government, and I don't mean just the Ulster unionists.

BBC is attacking LibDem ministers for the wrong reasons

I would like to be in Brighton this weekend, but I cannot afford the hotel bills. The pleasure of being with fellow party members from all over would in any case be marred by the sense that the Metropole and the BCC were being invested by the media, including the BBC. It would be like a returning exile being dropped into Leningrad during the Nazi siege (I know, I know, Godwin applies, but it was the first analogy I could come up with.) I really didn't fancy running the gauntlet of hacks asking me what I thought about Huhne, Pryce and Rennard.

There is a great danger in saying anything on these occasions. Tim Farron*, who has been an active president, has been caught out by an amusing, inspiring, article being quoted out of context. His words have been added to the ammunition of the conservatives (red and blue) attacking us from the media.

The latest wheeze is a "who knew what when?" argument about the Huhne speeding points, as if this mattered much. There are more subtle attacks: replacing Nick with Nigel Farage in the BBC-TV trail for BBC Parliament, for instance. (Remind me: how many MPs does UKIP have?)

There are plenty of serious matters over which the membership of the party may take issue with the parliamentary leadership: support for the Justice and Security Bill (which is heavy on the latter and rather light on the former), the working of DWP's Work Capability Assessment, the shambolic changes to the English NHS and the too-severe cuts in social security payments. My own grievance is the way that Nick gave in to Cameron and Miliband in burking the Lords Reform Bill, which, it should be remembered, was supported by the House of Commons, including a majority of Conservatives.

These are subjects which serious political correspondents should be concentrating on. But maybe this is part of a cunning plan by Danny Alexander? He is perhaps colluding with the BBC to give blanket coverage of personality-driven side-issues in order to distract the public from more serious matters, while garnering some sympathy for the party under such crude attack.

*I first saw Tim at an earlier Brighton conference, when he made a brilliant speech at a fringe meeting in favour of Local Works.

After Chavez

Jessica Duchen's post about the implications of the death of the Venezuelan president-elect for the future of music's El Sistema may be symbolic of the immediate future of the Venezuelan state.

First, JD makes clear that El Sistema was devised before Chavez came to power. He was swift to associate his socialist regime with the internationally-recognised work of Abreu and Dudamel, but, says JD, "nobody is suggesting that that should mean the end of El Sistema. At least, I hope they're not. Art and politics become terribly intertwined, as you know, at all the wrong moments. Those opposed to 'socialist' policies and to state support for culture in general tend to turn guns on El Sistema for their own ends. We'd like to think that the worth of music goes beyond that. Besides, the fact is that El Sistema works. It's been proven to work."

Similarly, Chavez's "missions" or social programmes, including education and health services for all, showed what could be done. Not as efficient as El Sistema, and by most external accounts implemented rather haphazardly, nevertheless the citizens of Venezuela are not going to give these benefits up if they can help it. Chavez resisted one attempted coup and one would expect his successors to be able to do the same, while his socialist party would seem to be safe for at least the next round of polls. (Chavez may have been a dictator, but he was an elected one.)

What Venezuela needs to do now is to mend her fences with the USA, taking advantage of the Obama presidency which has already relaxed relations with Cuba. If that means recanting some of Chavez's more  extreme statements, so be it. The prize of increasing her oil revenues, and attracting back some of her middle classes which had been frightened abroad by Chavez's brand of Marxism, would be worth it.

I would expect Venezuela to move from socialism to social democracy over the decade. At least, I hope so. The trend in South America generally has been towards democracy, so the portents are good.

What are the Liberal Democrats for?

Some commentators, mostly Labour supporters it has to be said, have taken to asking this question. The fact that it is easier to find out what the Liberal Democrats are for than it is to discern a purpose in the other two national parties is touched on by Peter Black but even more comprehensively answered by Julian Huppert I trust he will not object to my reproducing most of his article:

25 years ago, our party agreed its new constitution – and the preamble to that constitution, setting out our core values and vision.

[...]

What struck me when I read it, was both how much I agreed with it, and also how much it is still relevant. Sure, a couple of phrases are a bit clunky, and we’d probably say a bit more about climate change – but the importance of the environment is still mentioned. We talked about well-being before it was fashionable, and kept talking about workplace democracy when no one else did.

25 years on, it is still a well-written, clear, positive vision of what we stand for. A great tribute to the writers of the time!

It also sets us apart from the other parties, who quite pointedly don’t start with a statement of values, but of power and existence.

Let’s take Labour – there was much debate around clause 4 and Blairism – but I think the key to understanding the Labour Party is seen in Clause 1, the very beginning of their constitution. Here it is:

— Clause1 – Name and Objects 1 This organisation shall be known as ‘The Labour Party’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the party’). Its purpose is to organise and maintain in Parliament and in the country a political Labour Party.

2 The party shall give effect, as far as may be practicable, to the principles from time to time approved by party conference. —

The purpose of the Labour party is … wait for it … for there to be a Labour party! Clause 1.2 then admits it should try at least a bit to have some principles, but that is clearly secondary to the main purposes of existence and power. I think this says quite a lot about New Labour and Blairism.

The Tory constitution is rather hard to find, and is also rather self-referential. It starts:

Part 1 – Name, Purpose, Objects and Values

1 This is the constitution of a political party which shall be known as ‘The Conservative and Unionist Party’ (referred to in this Constitution as ‘The Party’)

2 Its purpose is to sustain and promote within the Nation the objects and values of the Conservative Party.

I’m proud that we start with a statement of values, rather than a statement of existence. We went into politics to achieve things, to make things better, to help people – not for power or political might.

But to build the free, fair and open society of our ambitions, to safeguard it, and to free people from their tripartite enslavements, we have to be able to actually do something about it. Our preamble quite rightly doesn’t encourage us merely to argue our values – but to try to deliver them as best we can. Let’s hope we are in a position to do so more often in the next 25 years.

Secret Courts

Caron Lindsay and Jo Shaw have written about Liberal disquiet over the Justice and Security Bill which would, as it stands, prevent some classes of defendants seeing the evidence against them. The suggestion is particularly worrying that the Home Office has brought forward votes on the contentious clauses in order to render nugatory any discussion at the LibDem conference which starts on 8th.

It is worth listening to the edition of BBC R4 "Law in Action" from last year in which the arguments for and against are exercised. (There is also a discussion on the legality of drone strikes.)

In praise of "The Good Wife"

As Chris Bryant wrote recently in one of his Independent columns: "I realised that I’m suffering from Borgen withdrawal syndrome. I’m not alone, either in my family or in Parliament, as the series has caught the imagination of not just those that love Scandinavian noir but politics addicts who have been in mourning ever since The West Wing. [...] What I don’t understand, though, is why people haven’t transferred their allegiance to the CBS show The Good Wife, which has not one but three strong female characters and brings in a gubernatorial election campaign, a weekly courtroom drama, a sharp spin doctor and one of the most compelling characters in modern TV, the private investigator Kalinda Sharma. And for those of you who love seeing Birgitte Nyborg tell men what to do in Borgen, just try Diane Lockhart (played by Christine Baranski) metaphorically bitch slap a judge."

As one who tuned in to More4's relay of "The Good Wife" from day one, I have to agree. I was attracted not only by the storyline (mother of teenage children has to resume legal career to support the family as disgraced high-flier husband is imprisoned) but also the prospect of seeing again Baranski who was the best thing about the '90s sitcom "Cybill". Her ability to deliver a tart line as if she has just thought of it is undiminished and she has established a rapport with Matt Czuchry (Will Gardner) which makes them very convincing legal partners. In addition, the writers have allowed her character, a mature woman, to have a couple of casual affairs (Bryan Brown was the latest lucky actor). This is unheard of in Hollywood, and not that common in US TV land.

What Mr Bryant is unusually delicate in not mentioning is that there was a strong Sapphic motif from early on. Kalinda (Archie Panjabi) is ready to use sexual favours to obtain information, and it was gradually revealed that this included same-sex relations. Romantic engagement with a female FBI agent looked like being serious but is now being thrown in doubt again as there are work conflicts. In the new series, a successful career-woman (Maura Tierney) has appeared first to bankroll a Democratic campaign for governor and then to run herself. \Her interest in the Good Wife, Alicia Florrick, appears to be more than professional.

As against that, there is only one regular (regular, but not frequent) out gay character, Alicia's brother, who is written as a stock "friend of Dorothy". Florrick's mother, too, is straight out of symbolic casting: churchgoing and embodying all the traits we used to attribute to the blue-rinsed ladies occupying the front rows of Conservative Party conference. Given the shading of character of the other main protagonists, one wonders whether this is wilful, rather than lazy writing, just like the pastiche of Aaron Sorkin's style of dialogue which was slipped into a recent episode.

It is perhaps not earth-shattering that the court cases have featured contentious issues such as terrorism, torture, drone strikes and, in the latest episode shown on terrestrial TV, sexual misconduct against a woman who could be expected (she was an army captain) to be immune from that sort of thing. Other US TV series, from Lou Grant on, have tackled tricky issues. What is not so common is that Lockhart Gardner loses from time to time.

As Mr Bryant writes, the plots are not totally credible when looked at closely, but one has to make allowances for a show in which a lot of loose ends have to be tied up in an hour every week. But, as he also says, the standard has been kept up well into the fourth series.