Jack Straw

The Guardian has published in full the Government's proposed Lords Reforms.

Jack Straw's new Lords would be elected on a regional basis.

The Government proposes 12 electoral regions which will act as multimember electoral constituencies. England will be divided into nine electoral regions, which are listed in Schedule 2. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will each be a single electoral region. This mirrors the electoral regions for European Parliamentary elections.

Introducing a territorial dimension to the Lords introduces the Upper West Lothian Question, but naturally they don't bother addressing that.

Interestingly the Government's apparently principled commitment to an all elected second chamber has its back broken by England's (not Britain's) ancient constitution.

Lords Spiritual
The Lords Spiritual – the 26 Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England – have always held a special and different position in the House of Lords. They differ from peers (the Lords Temporal) in two key respects. First, they do not sit for life, but only for their period as a Bishop or Archbishop of their diocese; secondly, although historically they sit as independent members of the Lords they are widely regarded as representatives of the Church of England.

The Government is and remains committed to the establishment of the Church of England, with the Sovereign as its Supreme Governor, and the relationship between Church and State. None of these reforms should or are meant to diminish establishment. The Established Church has for centuries played a seminal role in our national life and has played a major part in helping to shape the constitutional, legal and social fabric of the nation.

The nature of Establishment has changed down the years to reflect changing circumstances, but a presence in the Lords has been a constant manifestation. Bringing this to an end would therefore herald a significant change to a constitutional arrangement that binds Monarchy, Church and State together in a variety of ways. These include the fact that the Church of England’s own legislation is subject to Parliamentary scrutiny, and it is the Bishops who speak to that legislation in the House of Lords.

The Government proposes that a fully reformed second chamber, in recognition of the enduring importance of the established Church in national life, and irrespective of the outcome of the staging post review, should continue to allow a role for the established Church. So the continued role of
the Church would be guaranteed. The draft legislation provides for a limited role for a reduced number of Lords Spiritual in the reformed second chamber, but the exact arrangements would be subject to the views of the Church.

The Government also acknowledges the contribution which all faith communities have made to commenting on legislative proposals in the past. This is particularly true of the Church of England, but it is not confined to them. The Government will also consider how the contribution of the faith
communities more generally can still be made available.

Via The Talking Clock, my attention has been drawn to Jack Straw's uppity speech on constitutional reform, reported by the BBC here.

Jack Straw told the Hansard Society on Tuesday that the Conservative's plans to cut the number of MPs was a "dangerous, destructive and anti-democratic" piece of gerrymandering. The full speech is up on the Hansard Society website, here's the relevant section:

The apparently virtuous call to cut the cost of politics is actually camouflage for a dangerous, destructive and anti-democratic piece of gerrymandering. Their proposal is not about cutting the cost of politics; it is about advantaging the Conservative party. Boundaries drawn on the basis of registered electors, rather than the population as a whole, already distort the electoral map because registration rates are lowest among specific groups congregated in specific locations.

According to the Electoral Commission's recent estimate, most of the three million-plus people who are eligible to vote but who are not registered are to be found in our inner urban areas. Cutting 65-80 seats by crudely equalising registered voters would disproportionately reduce representation in urban areas and would also disadvantage Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. And it would hit every island community. Orkney and Shetland would be amalgamated with a large part of the highlands. The Isle of Wight would be amalgamated with a large part of Hampshire.

In stark contrast to Labour’s agenda for moving towards a new politics on the basis of popular consent, the Conservatives aim to butcher scores of constituencies for sordid political ends. I don’t think that’s the right way to go about significant constitutional change, and I don’t think it’s any
way to build public confidence in Parliament and the political process.

In summary.

• The Conservative's policy is "dangerous, destructive and anti-democratic" because it reverses the Labour Party's inbuilt advantage and makes a Labour government less likely.
• Equalising constituency sizes would disproportionately reduce representation in urban Labour-voting areas.
• Equalising constituency sizes would disproportionately reduce representation in Labour-voting Scotland and Wales (where MSPs and AMs handle much of the constituency work previously handled by MPs).

My obvious disdain for Jack Straw should not be taken as an indication of support for the Conservative policy. Straw does have a point about island constituencies. It would be daft in my opinion to break up the Isle of Wight, the UK's largest constituency, or to amalgamate Orkney and Shetland into mainland constituencies (if that is indeed what the Tories advocate). And I see no particular reason why there should be a strict equalisation of constituency size according to population. But it is deeply hypocritical of Jack Straw to accuse the Tories of planning to gerrymander electoral boundaries that are at present so biased in favour of his own party.

Letter to Norman Baker MP

Dear Mr Baker,

I am writing to you to ask whether there is anything you can do to put pressure on the Government to disclose the information denied to us by Jack Straw's veto over a FOI request.

Today Jack Straw vetoed a Freedom of Information Request that would have disclosed the minutes of the Cabinet Ministerial Committee on Devolution to Scotland and Wales and the English Regions (DSWR) of 1997.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/announcement101209a.htm

The remit of the DSWR Committee was as follows: "To consider policy and other issues arising from the Government’s policies for devolution to Scotland and Wales and the regions of England and to promote and oversee progress of the relevant legislation through Parliament and it subsequent implementation."

Jack Straw has stated that that release of the minutes was not in the public interest, would be damaging to the doctrine of collective responsibility and detrimental to the effective operation of Cabinet government.

I beg to differ. The recent Holtham report into an alternative to the Barnett Formula, which revealed that Scotland received £4.5bn a year too much; the demand for a legislative Welsh Assembly; the recent Calman Commission proposals; the Scottish Government's Your Scotland, Your Voice white paper, and; England's complete rejection of regional government, makes these minutes a matter of great public interest. That the Government believes otherwise indicates to me that they believe that disclosure of these minutes would somehow compromise the devolution settlement or cast it - or the UK Government itself - into disrepute. As a denizen of England, and one who feels that democracy in England has been damaged by the devolution acts, I would like to know the exact nature of the horse-trading that occured between Derry Irvine and Donald Dewar, in order that I can determine whether anyone in Government considered English interests during these negotiations (this is particularly important because England's place in the Union has only been debated by Cabinet members and not by the people of England - we have been denied our say).

Given that a great many people in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are very dissatisfied with the asymmetric mess that is New Labour's bodged attempt at devolution, it is conceivable, probable even, that they are witholding this information in order to prevent public knowledge of valid reservations raised by ministers at the time.

And as for the 'doctrine of collective responsibility', a look at the 1997 Cabinet should reveal exactly who this veto is designed to protect from public scrutiny and embarrassment: Jack Straw and Gordon Brown.

I have to ask, what are they hiding?

In ending I quote Peter Facey of Unlock Democracy:

"This is 12 years after the event. Devolution has already happened and is well established. There have been two General Elections, a change of Prime Minister and numerous Government reshuffles since this Cabinet meeting."

"A cynic could easily think that the Government is vetoing this to save themselves of political embarrassment months away from an election. The Freedom of Information Act is meant to empower the public, not protect politicians. It is ironic that the day after the Pre Budget Report, this veto will leave many feeling they have been short-changed. "

Yours,

Out of interest the 1997 Cabinet was as follows:

TONY BLAIR
GORDON BROWN
JOHN PRESCOTT
MARGARET BECKETT
JACK STRAW
ROBIN COOK
DAVID BLUNKETT
CLARE SHORT
MO MOWLAM
CHRIS SMITH
FRANK DOBSON
ANN TAYLOR
HARRIET HARMAN
RON DAVIES
GAVIN STRANG
DONALD DEWAR
LORD IRVINE
JACK CUNNINGHAM
GEORGE ROBERTSON
NICK BROWN
SIR ROBIN BUTLER
LORD IVOR RICHARD
ALISTAIR DARLING
DAVID CLARK

Two considerations that Jack Straw believes are of particular relevance are:

• A number of participants, including current Government Ministers, have their respective views recorded in the minutes.
• Of the large number of Ministers who took part in at least one of the DSWR meetings, the majority remain active in Parliament. 16 are members of the House of Commons and a further 15 members of the House of Lords. Additionally, seven Ministers are still in Government.

Really, what are these corrupt bastards hiding from us?

Unlock Democracy's press release is reproduced here.

The 'Tell Us Your Ideas' phase of Power 2010 ended yesterday, and no doubt electoral reform was amongst the most popular ideas (It certainly will have been if the people behind Power 2010 have anything to do with it).

According to Vote for a Change the campaign for electoral reform is going to take one almighty leap forward tomorrow.

The Government's Democratic Reform Council met yesterday: they have decided to call a vote in the Commons on a legally binding clause that will provide for a referendum on the voting system.

This is the first time the Commons will be able to vote on holding such a referendum in decades.

What are the odds that the 'Democratic Reform Council' - whoever they are - will favour the Alternative Vote system that Jack Straw spoke about in his lecture to the Magna Carta Institute last week?

We need an electoral system that secures legitimacy for the public. I have in principle long supported the Alternative Vote, by which voters rank candidates in order of preference, and now believe we need to actively move to it.

Crucially the Alternative Vote would enable us to retain the single Member constituency link, which is one of the central merits of the current system – both because it delivers effective representation and allows MPs to be held directly to account. But AV would also ensure that every MP is elected with the support of over half of the voters in their constituency. In an age of multi-party politics, it could both enhance the legitimacy of MPs and enable the public to express a greater range of preferences.

Yes Jack. I'm sure the electoral reform campaigners have been glad of your support during your twelve years as a Government minister, you've campaigned tirelessly for electoral reform haven't you? You bow to no one in your unyielding integrity and your determination to deliver Labour's 1997 manifesto pledge on electoral reform.

If you want to enhance the legitimacy of MPs you could begin by giving us that referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (which came into force today) that was promised us and by doing something about the constitutional issue that most concerns us, the voters (and here I quote Hansard's Audit on Democratic Engagement):

The constitutional issue that the greatest number of people are dissatisfied with by far is Scottish MPs being able to vote on English issues in the Commons (46%).

But wait, those Scottish MPs could be useful in securing a referendum on England's voting system so that this fag-end of a government can, in its dying days, secure a referendum on electoral reform to prevent England turning blue.

It's oft quoted, but here it is in full:

The English are potentially very aggressive, very violent. We have used this propensity to violence to subjugate Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Then we used it in Europe and with our empire, so I think what you have within the UK is three small nations...who've been over the centuries under the cosh of the English. Those small nations inevitably sought expression by a very explicit idea of nationhood. You have this very dominant other nation, England, 10 times bigger than the others, which is self-confident and therefore has not needed to be so explicit about its expression. I think as we move into this new century, people's sense of Englishness will become more articulated and that's partly because of the mirror that devolution provides us with and because we're becoming more European at the same time.

Have we really kept the other nations "under the cosh"?

Was it really England's empire?

And how much of it was "English" violence and aggression, as opposed to the violence and aggression of the British or England's rulers?