Has traditional Government run its natural course?

Much has changed in the 170 years since Charles Barry was successful with his competition entry to redesign the Houses of Parliament. The current buildings replaced the previous Parliamentary structures destroyed by fire in 1834.

The subsequent reconstruction of the embankments in the Victorian era may have done much to improve the tidal flow, flooding risk and sanitation of Westminster. However, it has done little to solidify the very ground on which the Palace of Westminster was built. Subsidence is already a known risk within parts of Parliament square, so much so that Big Ben is already leaning 18 inches from the perpendicular. The £1 billion pound bill likely to save the building could keep the Palace standing, however, it may be a metaphor for some of the deeper challenges facing the institution of Government itself.

Wolfie Smith: Power to the people

For those who can remember uk tv comedies of the 1970’s, one political war cry probably stands out above any other, that of Citizen (Wolfie) Smith with his promise of ‘Power to the People’. A rather harmless and underwhelming anarchist type who felt power should be returned from Central Governments (of all colours) and vested in the local man on the street.

At the time the the British Government was drawn from one of the two dominant parties swapping between Conservative and Labour. Devolution of any kind to Scotland and Wales was wishful thinking at best. Given this, it was hardly surprising that the rise of people power and localism against national governments was seen as little more than an unattainable pipe dream.

In the intervening years, significant changes to the structures and manner of government have taken place. In the  1970’s Britain was part of what was then the European Economic Community (EEC). At the time, the EEC was a smaller body consisting of nine member states. It’s focus was at that time the formation of a ‘common market’ across its members. Putting the political merits of ever closer union to one side, the EEC of the 1970 had few aspirations to undertake supra-national governance. The weight of EU directives (whether you agree with them or not) simply wasn’t of the same scale in the mid 70’s. Regardless of how well it did them, the role of Parliament and the job of government was wider at that time.

Add to this the introduction of unitary authorities in the 1980’s and some of the responsibilities exercised by ministers and whitehall have left Parliament to their respective local authorities. On top of this significant powers have been passed to the Scottish government and Welsh Assembly. All in all, this represents a significant shift of ownership from the days of 1970’s central ministry control.

Ballot Paper

One electoral and representational mechanism has also seen a rise in popularity (certainly in parts of Europe) over the same period. The rise of the referendum has been quite noticable in the UK, a jurisdiction where referenda was traditionally seen as something of a failure in Parliamentary democracy by some.

In recent years, referenda have been held to consider subjects as varied as further devolution, and the voting system for general elections. Further promises have been made to take the public view on continued membership of the European  Union and the possibility of a futher devolution powers referendum in Wales.

Of course, the more referendums are held, the more the voting public get used to them and expect their voice to win sway on the most significant issues. Many European countries (including the UK) have legislative requirement for a referendum if changes to the existing European Union treaties are necessary. Similarly, the republic of Ireland has recently put the question of gay marriage to the popular vote.

Politicians who have regularly opposed referenda felt this introduction could pose a significant risk to the representational model used in the British Parliament. Traditionally, members of Parliament don’t feel compelled to echo the popular views of their constituency (unless it is high profile or their majority is wafer thin). Instead, the constituency elects an MP to make value judgements on their behalf. Some believe the growth of referenda may subtly change this emphasis and in doing so change the nature of Parliament and how Government works.

Digital Voting?

Perhaps one of the largest changes over the past thirty years has been the introduction of new technology along with its constant evolution. Surprisingly, one of the few areas it has addressed is elections and the counting of votes. However, serious money is being spent to test the viability of digital voting both for UK General elections and to encourage wider participation in the political process.

Digital voting has already been introduced for high profile events such as the Oscars as well as a number of US state elections. So far the results have been encouraging with results being almost instantaneously available with no issues over security of voting having been raised to date.

Campaign group WebRoots Democracy recenlt published a report in which they found that the introduction of online voting could boost turnout in a UK general election by nine million. Even if that is only half right that would be an unsurpassed achievement in improving political engagement.

The report also found that online voting in the UK could reduce the cost per vote by a third, saving taxpayers around £12.8m per general election. This would also significantly reducing the number of accidentally spoilt ballots, speed up the counting process, and enabling vision-impaired voters to cast a secret ballot for the first time. The report has been supported by the newly elected government who are proposing trials with a view to moving to digital elections as soon as practicable.

Todays Queens speach promised further devolution for Wales and demands for further powers to be granted to the Scottish Parliament soon followed. Whatever is decided in those debates what is clear is that the House of Commons is far from the powerhouse of democracy it was in the pre-war era.

Whilst no serious commentator would suggest that government is unecessary, what is increasingly clear is that the system and structures currently in place in the UK are becoming increasingly unfit for purpose having been overtaken by events.

It seems inevitable that some fairly major changes are likely to the way the component parts of the UK relate to each other. This is bound to have an impact on the style and feel of government. The current flavour of the month is a federal model of types with the Houses of Parliament being the Federal legislature dealing with UK wide issues such as defence and foreign policy. What seems to be certain is that the current status quo is likely to be a short term holding position.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So much Government: Thoughts of an unexpected constitutional monarchist.

The second institution I visited whilst in Canberra was the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. For the Brits reading this, please don’t confuse this with our usual meaning of the word Commonwealth. – Perhaps a little explanation and context is in order (with apologies to my new and existing Australian friends for the bits I get wrong). So firstly a brief revisitation of the history of Australia for my fellow Brits.

Captain James Cook RN

The first record of Europeans sailing into Australian waters is dated around 1606, and includes their observations of the land known as Terra Australis Incognita (unknown southern land). This was by Dutchman, Willem Janszoon. A former buccaneer, William Dampier, was the first Englishman to land on the Australian mainland ( 5th January 1688 in his ship the Cygnet).He was the first European to report Australia’s peculiar ‘large hopping animals’. Capt James Cook didn’t chart the Australian East Coast until 1770 in HM Barque Endeavour.

So between 1606 and 1770 numerous contacts were made and around that time (not least because of the British East India Company) a number of interactions with Europeans took place. Contrary to popular belief in parts of Europe, not all those landing on Australian soil were convicts. In fact, Britain and France conducted most ‘transportations’. The first British was ‘cast into exile’ according to Court records in 1788. The last transportation took place from England in 1868.

As a result of these to-ings and fro-ings, six States emerged being (alphabetically) New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania (formerly Van Diemen’s Land), Victoria and Western Australia. Details of their evolution can be found here.

Then there are the territories. These are lesser jurisdictions and are not ‘full states’. In many senses they are governed directly from the Federal Commonwealth. The mainland territories are: Australian Capital Territory (Canberra and surrounds) and Northern Territory. In addition, the staunchly independent Australia (and rightly too) holds a number of overseas territories being: Ashmore and Cartier Territory, Australian Antarctic Territories, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Coral Sea Islands, Christmas Island, Heard and McDonald Islands, Indian Ocean Territories, Jervis Bay Territory and Norfolk Island.

I wont go into the differences between States and Territories except arguably the most important difference being the number of representatives elected to the Senate (upper house).

Purely for the purposes of shared understanding and explanation to a UK audience, think of the modern Federated setup in this way. Consider the Government in Canberra to be the National Government of Australia. (A phrase which causes some difficulty in Australia) The six original states can be considered as sovereign states much like those in the US. However, they are also in some senses a kind of super charged Local Authority in terms a Brit would understand.

Flag of Australia

The first challenge to the brain of a UK visitor could be summed up in the question “How many countries exist on the mainland of Australia?”
Surely the answer is One ? – Well of course in many senses it is, but students of Australian constitutional law (and those who have them as their significant others) will tell you that each of the six original states is a ‘sovereign state’ in it’s own right. Each with Queen Elizabeth II as their head of state.

Nobody I have asked (and I’ve asked a few) has been able to tell me the difference between a ‘sovereign state’ and a country.  However, they all pointed out that the recognition of the original six states is preserved by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. Interestingly, that Commonwealth Constitution was enacted by the UK Parliament. Powers to the Australian territories were in turn granted by the Commonwealth of Australia with the States being autonomous in their own right.

The States were brought together in Federation in 1901 (much later than I had thought) with that overarching entity being the Commonwealth of Australia. Some Australians have made a comparison between this relationship and that of the member states of the EU. In that model, Canberra becomes a type of Supranational body. With these nuggets of information and background firmly planted in my head, we made our way to tour the Australian Parliament.

Australian Parliament

The new Australian Parliament buildings are situated at one end of  Anzac Parade. The architects and designers were reportedly extremely keen to ensure that the Parliament was not sitting ‘above’ the people it represented but rather that the people were above it’s Parliament.

This thinking led to the excavation of a large hill in Canberra where the Parliament was then constructed and the hill rebuilt around and above the Parliament. Indeed, you can walk up the hill to the point immediately under the rather impressive and imposing flagpole. At that point you are indeed above the Parliamentary chambers.

It was a huge political statement to design a Parliament in this way, although arguably only partially successful. The hill is still significantly higher than most of Canberra and some height above the old Parliamentary buildings it replaced.

The Government is made up of two houses (broadly following the Westminster model). The lower house being the House of Representatives with the upper house being the Senate. Both are elected (although at different times and for different periods of office). Both are also considered to have parity within the governmental structures.

House of Representatives

The House of Representatives has a familiar feel to members of other Commonwealth countries and certainly to anyone familiar with the Westminster Parliament.

The members of the house are elected by a form of preferred alternative vote and it isn’t unusual to have a significant number (in excess of 20) parties and/or candidates on a ballot paper for the lower house.

The green (a blue-green representing the nations gum tree leaves) mirrors the UK House of Commons. Less adversarial in shape, the basic  structures are very similar including the dispatch boxes, bar of the Commons and Mace representing the Crown (although not it’s power as in the UK).

In other regards, the lower house felt very familiar to me although ironically, placing the Parliament in its own government centric territory did make me wonder whether it feels any more relevant and representative of Australia? Some of the same difficulties around the ‘Westminster village’ seemed to be present by virtue of having created a government centric territory.

The Australian Senate

The upper house (Senate) had a similarly superficial similarity. The red house (similar to the house of lords) is actually more shades of pink to represent some of the flowering species in Australia.

The Westminster ‘thrones’ are substituted for maple chairs for the Governor General. The only other significant difference in layout is  the reallocation of the ‘Lords Spiritual’ benches (Bishops and archbishops in the UK house of lords) to political advisors.

However, the differences in this house are more profound. Firstly it is a wholly elected house. Secondly, it views itself as having parity with the House of Representatives within the broader Government. This is subtly but importantly different to the UK where the House of Lords considers itself a legitimate amending house but ultimately subordinate in terms of the will of the House of Commons.

As I toured the Parliament building I found myself experiencing an unexpected hardening of views relating to the UK political system. There just seems to be so much government fighting for the same territory in Australia. I should stress that I’m not making a value judgement or criticism of the system in Australia. Given the history described above it has evolved organically to suit the needs of the country. However, it made me more firm in the view that the current system in the UK actually works quite well for us too.

I wouldn’t (and couldn’t) justify creating a Westminster system from scratch for a new State. Equally, I suspect many Australians would iron out some of their Constitutional idiosyncrasies and would equally not start afresh from where they are today?

Canberra Parliamentary Building Flagpole

As someone brought up pre-devolution in the UK, I struggle with the number of Parliaments and Governments in play. Each State has its own Parliament and Supreme Court. Similarly Canberra has the Commonwealth (Australian) Parliament with reserved national policy powers. These include the right to issue currency, defence, immigration and similarly national issues. However, as three Australian lawyers have told me the legal community could argue for ever over those interpretations and the extent to which the State and Federal powers overlap. I have started to see similar debates over the UK West Lothian question and ‘independence’ for Scotland and Wales.

Whilst accepting that the House of Lords is an anachronistic hang-over from Supreme rule of the Monarchy, it is an effective second chamber despite being appointed. Two Australian lawyers have mistakenly commented that the UK has no upper house – so it isn’t just my preconceptions that have been challenged during my visit.

Despite it’s non elected status, (some might say because of it), there is no ‘battle for supremacy’ between the two Houses of Parliament. Nor does electoral drive play as prominent a part as I have seen in both the US and Australia.

I could continue to consider the differences here. As you can imagine it has led to some interesting but always polite and good natured political discussions with Vaughan. However, I think I have settled on the position that both systems serve their respective countries well given their history,  culture and national  psyche. However, they would probably not transfer well one to the other.

Perhaps there is more truth in the suggestion that we all end up with the governments we deserve.

 

 

Why do we need our politicians?

United Kingdom Houses of Parliament

Today I found myself in a meeting in London listening to a number of cross-party political types. ‘More fool you’ I hear you cry, don’t come to me with your self inflicted miseries.

Most of the attendees were urging people to become more active in the political process and bemoaning the continuing disengagement from politics by the general population.

At one point, we were referred to the comments of a handful of MP’s complaining about their increased workload. – Why MP’s should feel they are immune from increasing workloads is slightly beyond me – but I digress.

I couldn’t help but wonder how politicians pre 1970 managed to handle their roles. Whilst not making a deliberately anti-EU point, presumably much of the work now delegated or transferred to Brussels must have previously been performed by national governments with additional demands on MP’s, select committees and ministers?

The past thirty years has also seen significant swathes of secondary legislation empowering town and borough councils to take on local responsibility for items as wide ranging as highways and recycling. At least a proportion of this workload presumable fell to Westminster prior to the responsibilities being spread to local authorities? With the growth of quangos (quasi autonomous non-governmental organisations) still moving forward with vigour I can only assume a significant amount of their activity left Westminster some time ago. Whilst there is bound to be a degree of retained central oversight and management the day-to-day functions have been marching out of Whitehall since the 70’s

In a similar way, the introduction of regional assemblies, the Scottish Parliament and regional development agencies/areas has further removed areas of responsibility previously run on a day to day basis through ministers and wider government. So the devil in me can’t help wondering what exactly is there left for them to be doing ?

The obvious answer would be the creation and scrutiny of legislation. However, most first year politics students would be able to tell you most drafting is now done by the civil service. Scrutiny is certainly part of the parliamentary process but can it really keep 650+ MP’s fully occupied. In recent years much of the real scrutiny and challenge has come from the House of Lords where the whipping system is slightly less powerful.

The recent expenses scandal was strongly indicative that the majority of an MP’s time is now spent in London, so the idea that the spare time has been transferred to local constituency matters is somewhat suspect. I would ask my own MP but unfortunately my question arises during his six week summer break. Even then, I would have to be quick as two weeks after returning they break again for the party conference season and then it’s a skip and a jump to the Christmas recess.

So I’m left wondering why we have as many MP’s now as we did before these various releases of responsibility and accountability. We appear to be over-represented in comparison to most of our European neighbours. Perhaps we should look to a smaller and more committed and connected first chamber and ditch some of the career politicians for whom work pressures seem to be something strange and exotic.