John Ward February 10, 2011 political games.

If it does nothing else useful, the Coalition may at least break down the Party system.

Today’s vote on prisoners’ electoral is a crucial test

Later today there will be a crucial Commons vote on the right or otherwise of prisoners to have an electoral vote. Because it suits his book to throw a crumb to the Conservative right wing (and look truculent over an EU issue) the Prime Minister has given MPs a free vote. After much squabbling yesterday, it looks like there will now be a majority in favour of defying the EU.

As Ken Clarke has already made abundantly clear, in the end we will ‘fulfil our European Union obligations’, but that’s not really the point. David Cameron has been pressured by circumstances into accepting Party indiscipline – and humouring it.

Now today we read that 90 top LibDem Councillors have publicly attacked the Government’s cuts programme – a Government in which they are technically partners. There’s not much Cameron can do about this either – without upsetting the Huhne/Cable axis of thinly-veiled disloyalty.

At the weekend, Nick Clegg devoted a speech and press conference to putting forward how economic reconstruction and stimulation was indeed a priority for ‘the Government’, despite the fact that – when you look at policy papers in the pipeline – it is clear that the Coalition is doing none of the things he suggested. There’s a very good reason for that: two of them are LibDem, not Tory, policies.

Now some would observe that these events merely show how Coalition government really doesn’t work in practice: that policy is diluted and the direction becomes fuzzy. But if you look at PR-created Coalition government elsewhere in the EU, the one thing it always leads to is a proliferation of Parties.

The assumption that the voting system caused the change is sensible, but may no longer be considered the only reason. Parties are very, very rarely invented by voters: they’re created by politicians fed up of being bullied by Whips, and a ignored by Party leaderships that usually ignore them. I suspect the way round change works is that such politicos are motivated by leaderships out of touch with the public – and then encouraged to do something dramatic by the PR voting system.

This is not an academic consideration. If ‘rebels’ in the Labour and Conservative Parties win out today, they will not face dire consequences. Those on the Left who find Big Ed far too Highgate for their taste (and accept that the denial of votes to prisoners is commonsense) will have flexed their muscles; and the eurosceptic Tory Right will have won a major victory that leaves William Hague looking decidedly isolated. As Daniel Ellsberg once remarked, “Courage is contagious”.

What makes the trend even more fascinating is that not only will it have been achieved without PR, it will be apparent even to the dullest of backbench fodder that voting in favour of AV later this year can help a cause. It could quite easily change the dynamics of MPs’ public support for the referendum: and shift more people like me into the AV camp if only because it offers the chance to make political realignment a strong possibility rather than just an extremely unlikely outcome.

A wion against the EUCourt today will be bad for the Cameroons, good for Nick Clegg, and excellent for MPs’ power. And (as the Cameroons will know only too well) it won’t do David Davis any harm either.

17Comments

Add yours

1

KG on February 11, 2011 at 8:30 pm

Be ready for any eventuality. It is too smug to think there will never be political prisoners.

LikeLike
2

TheRagingTory on February 11, 2011 at 1:20 pm

PR is the bane of the individual and the ambrosia of the Buerocracy.

Its unlikely, but possible, that Cameron could lose Witney and cease to be an MP.
Its inconceivable that the Tories would ever lose every seat in parliament.

If you want Democracy, you need to look west not east.
The idea that a Republican Congressman from Texas could whip one from Colorado is just beyond the understanding of most of the Americans I know.

LikeLike
3

John Ward on February 11, 2011 at 1:11 pm

There’s nothing for me to work out Dunc. I see PR as a mmeans to the end of restoring faith in democracy, and encouraging politicos to give Whips the finger…plus (mainly) encourage new movements to challenge in seats where currently they would have no chance.
My WORRY old top (which you should work out too)is a short-term one: that a PR system would deliver a huge ‘Progressive’ majority…and that would soon mark the end of democracy given the fascists in charge of that tendency at the moment.
I’m as keen as ever on PR in principle…not really on AV as it isn’t PR, and would do nothing to dilute Executive power. But one has to watch it on almost a week by week basis.

LikeLike
4

Bankrupt Taxpayer on February 11, 2011 at 9:28 am

@Duncan McAusland:
You seem to have a reading and comprehension problem which has led you to post political propaganda in favour of PR/AV.

Did you not notice that my comments above were based upon our existing system of electing MPs? And my reference to new parties not having a very successful record in Britain is a historical fact and was, of course, a reference to David Owen & Co.

Blair’s “New Labour” got away with changing the party’s name and political stance only because it emerged from within “Labour” ie: it was an internal takeover.
But as we can see, original “Labour” re-asserted itself after Blair resigned, and today Labour is back to being as whacko as ever. Some say that a lot of people in “Labour” never liked the Blair takeover and simply tolerated it because he won elections.

If Britain introduces a system of AV, then all bets are off. We may well see more political parties emerge, but it remains to be seen. And we don’t have AV at this time.

All that being so, I stand by my previous comments that a fair number of LibDems are unhappy with what they see as Clegg’s surrender in this colaition govt. Opinion polls support my view.

HTH

LikeLike
5

TheRagingTory on February 11, 2011 at 8:50 am

It would be much cleaner for any government wishing to ban opposition parties to simply pass a law stating its the victor of any and all elections.

The government neither could jail every member of UKIP, and if it did, the opposition could simply promise to unban UKIP and hoover up their votes.

LikeLike
6

Duncan McAusland on February 11, 2011 at 2:19 am

Y’see john, if we DID have PR, then there would be a good number of UKIP and seriously EU-sceptic MPs who could actually exert a significant influence. But you’re never going to reflect a “significant minority” opinion when there are only TWO parties and Euro-scepticism isn’t inherent to either of those parties.
You’ll work it out in the end!

LikeLike
7

Duncan McAusland on February 11, 2011 at 1:59 am

The Bankrupt Taxpayer obviously knows very little about PR and the way inevitable coalitions work in all the countries where it works so successfully (don’t read British journalists’ opinions – they don’t travel, they know bugger all and they get paid by VERY dodgy media owners).
Patently this is the first coalition you have experienced hence your using silly expressions like “Clegg’s surrender”. The Lib Dems did NOT get a majority vote. They were the THIRD party in the election. That they share ANY say in government is because they held a balance in a hung election in a very stupid two-party, first-past-the-post system. So ALL they can do is INFLUENCE the governing coalition. Think where we would be if the Tory Party red in tooth and claw had got in with a significant majority. “Surrender” indeed!!!
And yes with PR you get LOTS of parties. You vote for the party that best fits your political point of view and THEN you get to compromise in coalition. You don’t have to choose between just two parties – NEITHER of which represents your point of view – and compromise your ideals even before you vote. Simples!! Wake up and vote for AV – it may not be anything like PR (another, and considerably more important issue on which the Lib-Dems “surrendered”), but it does change the dynamic albeit very modestly.

LikeLike
8

John Ward on February 10, 2011 at 10:46 pm

For me, the most likely defections are Tory Rightists to UKIP.
With a rebranded UKIP and a new leadership line-up, such a grouping would have mass appeal.
But it seems unlikely overall.

LikeLike
9

John Ward on February 10, 2011 at 10:43 pm

Yep, that makes sense to me

LikeLike
10

John Ward on February 10, 2011 at 10:42 pm

We are not talking about political prisoners here.
As David Davis has wisely observed, “Those who break the law cannot expect to make the law”.

LikeLike
11

Robert on February 10, 2011 at 5:27 pm

The last breakaway of MP’s from an established party was the SDLP which lasted pretty much until the 1983 election and thereafter declined significantly as Thatcher gained popularity and Labour started to get it’s act together. It was eventually swallowed up by David Steele’s Liberals.

It is hard to think that anyone on the Tory ‘right’ or in Labour would do anything similar today as they would potentially destroy any career they might have. This time round with AV we might see the electorate making the changes which could tempt some MP’s to defect.

There is nothing crucial about todays vote. Prisoners will get the vote and Dave will ok it with his mates in Europe. We don’t rule here anymore, the power has gone and we should get used to it until we can do something about it. http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2011/02/votes-for-prisoners-how-david-cameron-is-hiding-the-truth-about-european-power-over-human-rights.html

LikeLike
12

Romford_Dave on February 10, 2011 at 3:33 pm

The term international law (lack of capitilisation deliberate) is bandied around as though it is some sort of higher legislation we ultimately have to abide by. This simply isn’t the case, at best it is a code of behaviour that in an ideal world, everyone would concur with. It is the responsibility of each Government, democratically elected or otherwise, to agree what is best practice and most appropriate for individual Sovereign nations.

The interpretation by 1/47 of a remotely located Quango is of no consequence if a Sovereign nation doesn’t concur.

That said, the 1/47 has the power to enforce his interpretation with sanctions against any Sovereign nation who incurs his displeasure, the Sovereign nation meanwhile can decide that such action is an act of war and react accordingly.

From such trivialities many a war was launched. Elitist behaviour pisses off the proletariate at their peril.

LikeLike
13

Bankrupt Taxpayer on February 10, 2011 at 3:24 pm

“…we could keep the blanket ban simply by handing it down as part of the sentence for each prisoner.”

That would be a neat solution. There are some people in prison (eg TV tax evaders) who should be allowed to vote. Many others: murderers, violent offenders, bank robbers, kiddie fiddlers and other assorted criminals who should not be.

LikeLike
14

JP on February 10, 2011 at 3:09 pm

Strangely enough I remember hearing on the radio, that we could keep the blanket ban simply by handing it down as part of the sentence for each prisoner.

I accept this vote is more about the principle of sticking two fingers up to Europe but the above could be a fallback plan for round two of ‘up yours’.

I don’t actually think prisoners care, I’m free and know my vote makes no difference, I’ve voted for an independent candidate in the last few elections as a form of protest.

LikeLike
15

TheRagingTory on February 10, 2011 at 3:07 pm

My take was the probably less likely “Camerons setting himself up for re-election”.

Think about it, a snap election in may.
Labour are generaly regarded as delusional, predicting millions of job losses and armagedon minutes after Cameron got into number 10.
The LibDems are fresh from argueing kiddie fiddlers deserve to vote

The Tories are moderatly flush and, if nothing else, can claim to have halved the body count in Afghanistan.

The situation is unlikely to be better in 2014.

LikeLike
16

Bankrupt Taxpayer on February 10, 2011 at 2:43 pm

I’m not sure whether you’re suggesting a fading away of the political party system in favour of a more independent MP model, or a proliferation in the number of parties.

New political parties don’t have a very successful history in Britain, so I can’t see many new parties emerging. Creating a new party with any intent to be successful requires a lot of intelligence and commitment. Most MPs have neither, many are only there for the money and status.

Polls suggest a more likely outlook is for some LibDems to quit their party in disgust at what they see as Clegg’s surrender, and to join (or rejoin) the Labour Party. A small handful might even join the Tory Party.

I could be wrong :-)

LikeLike
17

KG on February 10, 2011 at 2:33 pm

Although Euro-sceptics do like to concentrate on the EU the court in question is set up under the European Convention on Human Rights. This pre-dates the EEC /EU having been formed under a treaty of 1950 that came into force in 1953.

There are currently 47 member states that each appoint a judge to the court. In theory the judges “do their own thing” with regard to the law rather than take instructions.

Either we take international law and the conventions we have signed up to (and in this case been involved heavily in the original treaty) seriously or we will be seen as no better than [insert name of your pet hate country here].

There will of course always remain the sovereign duty to do what we consider to be the right thing. If parliament does not like a judgement then stick two fingers up and take the consequences.

If we are the only country that has a blanket ban on prisoners’ votes then we should also have a proper debate as to why this may be. It seems far fetched at this moment but what happens when all the supporters of UKIP (for example)are jailed for belonging to a banned organisation and not allowed to vote for anyone?

LikeLike