I usually invite a guest speaker to our weekly crossbench meetings and yesterday it was Sir John Major. He now spends a lot of his working life addressing audiences all over the world on topics ranging from leaner government, through trade competition , to world population. So his was a practised speech but no less welcome. Here are the main points:
Government is too big, too inexperienced in anything but politics and almost exclusively committed to short term policies .
A fully elected House of Lords would reduce variety and depth of expertise and possibly result in those members who were unable to achieve MP status.
Worl population is growing at exponential rates and by 2040-50 there will be the equivalent of two extra Chinas on the world stage. Half the world will go to bed hungry while agricultural subsidies to well-fed nations may rise. Meanwhile, policies continue to deal only with the next decade, if that. In the UK particularly, which he believes to be bankrupt, national debt is three times higher than in Italy and unlikely to catch up with most post industrial countries in the next few year. Pensions and equity will be down, unemployment up and a generation of poor pensioners looms. Expectations must be managed now.
There was less consultation and consideration on the entry into Afghanistan’s war than in any other conflict in history; there was little or no strategic or exit planning, inadequate numbers of, and poorly equipped, soldiers and what he termed ‘shameful’ political management throughout.
There is an urgent need to begin somewhere and the best starting point might be to reform the ways in which government works: fewer ministers but with longer appointments for appropriately qualified ministers; less ‘bear-garden’ like Prime Minister’s Questions; far more pre-legislative scrutiny to avoid constant amendments to existing legislation; publication of say a three-year parliamentary legislative programme,; less whipping, more independence and, finally, every government decision must take the need for competitiveness in world trade into account.
Nice headlines, which to most I agree but the devils in the small print.
There is a miriad of debate there, the main consideration being length of office. How long did M.Thatcher have ? Did she solve all the problems ? So how long is long enough ?
Expansion both financial and population will have to burst sometime. It is this we have to plan for. Whilst most of the electorate are apathetic to politics at present this will change in times of depression and hunger. Did it not happen in Germany in the 1930`s ? The door has crept open and a few have got in, it`s up to you to slam it shut. The consequences of doing nothing are unbearable.
I must commend Mr Major for seeing things and stating them as they are. I do ask of him does he have solutions to these problems, what is more can they be implemented before catastrophe strikes ?
I agree entirely about the HoL after all the people truely Governing are not elected. Ministers can only act on information that is given to them and it is the people with the information that will feed the view of Government. (See WMD Iraq).
I struggle with the idea of “Major Wisdom” having read “John Major, The Autobiography” 1999. The Chapters on Maastricht and The ‘Bastards’ are particularly illuminating as we can now judge his comments against the background of Lisbon and the all to common use by the European Commission of its powers over the Westminster Government. eg Page 371.
“We also went someway to refute claims that Maastricht meant a federal Europe. ‘National powers are the rule and not the exception,’ Europe’s leaders agreed.”
Try telling that to anyone trying to produce something, farm, fish, trade, bury something, etc etc. They know who now runs the UK and it is not the Westminster Government.
However, maybe John Major has gained wisdom since he was Prime Minister. Many of us would applaud “leaner government, ‘real’ trade competition” and would find his lectures easier to accept if he apologised for pressing Maastricht upon us and the resultant federal Europe in which we now find ourselves.
Reduce the number of peers to 250.
Keep the elected hereditary peers as they have developed it, as a safeguard for the monarchy.
Possibly reduce their number in proportion to the reduction of peers overall.
Will there be any more changes in the “second” chamber in the foreseeable future? Probably not, unless the lib dems get in,in May/June next year, either in coalition with the Conservatives or on their wicket.
100 senators can do the job. We don’t need 700 plus. That’s the quick cheap fix.
However, we can abolish that completely.
Referenda by proxy is a cheap system. Let the electorate give approval to each bill. Then every one has an equal say, unlike the current system where patronage and an unelected quango have the say.
national debt is three time
So what’s the national debt? No doubt you’ll claim it is government bond borrowing. In part that tells the truth. The government has no intention whatsoever of paying its pension liabilities. For the simple reason that they are above 5-6 trillion pounds, and the entire tax revenue is 0.5 trillion and falling. Add in the bonds, and the mortgage multiplier is horrific. The house of lords has allowed that ponzi scam to take place.
So how many Lords do we axe to get costs down?
Don the tin hats…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8380678.stm
I want to see a clearer system where I know exactly how much a Lord or MP is worth in terms of salary/allowances in a total.
The public are not stupid, they think that by employing such a complex system of payments they are being had. Are they ?
I want compare a Lord and MP against the minimum wage of £5.80 per hour. How does your 40 hour week compare ?
Major Wisdom. Not a description which could be used for the woeful performance of Baroness Barbara Young of the Care Quality Commission on the Today programme. Absolutely pitiful would be closer to the truth.
I appreciate that the CQC may be underfunded, but if she doesn’t trust the figures, why is she putting her reputation on the line by not being willing to ‘put her name to them’, so to speak ??
And if only some of the records are accurate, because many are out of date, why on earth do they not remove the inaccurate ones, because they muddy the water and make it IMPOSSIBLE to use 100% of the figures.
Is it because they DON’T KNOW which figures are robust and which are duff ?? In which case WHY PUBLISH ANY OF THEM ?? Is it because it is just a PR exercise to give the illusion that the Government cares about the health of the nation while using cynical guff about ‘leveraging up care standards’ or whatever other twaddle is ‘flavour of the month’ ??
Maybe you need a “Lords Quality Commission” to weed out failing Baronesses and put in a ‘tiger troubleshooting team’ where Lords are in need of ‘Special Measures’.
Evan Davis made mincemeat of Baroness Young and if she had any decency she would resign instead of making vapid excuses for woeful under-performance.
Now! Now! Beddgelert!
“the illusion that the Government cares about the health of the nation”.
It does! It does, but it does not care two figs
for the health of the individual, of for the ethics of the service it runs.
I would amend the quoted remark a little by saying “the illusion that the STATE cares about the health of the nation”.
It does not; it only cares about the health of the state, not the health of the individual at all. How can it?
The word “nation” is not helpful.
Correspondents may have gathered that I am radical on many things….
Gareth. You aren’t the only one who has come to that conclusion on the basis of the evidence.
The government has vast debts all off the balance sheet, and its deliberately giving the illusion that it will be ok.
Nick
Major, as with almost all other PMs, seems only to develop thoughtful ideas long after any power or influences to achieve them is long gone.
Is it not worth at least thinking carefully about the competing demands put upon any government in this age of economic and political globalisation?
There is never enough in the budget, especially now and not entirely due to this Government’s fault, but demands on just about every front are increasing. Politically one’s international allies are hugely important if one wishes to get agreement on major issues such as climate change and they may have to be assuaged from time to time?
I am mightily relieved that I am not government! Which, of course, is not to say that one should not robustly insist on accountability and be free to criticise harshly what is done in our name.
Yes you are the government. Just because you are in opposition doesn’t change it one iota.
You are making the rules. We don’t get that privilidge.
So you have to take collective responsibility
nickleaton: ‘Yes, you are the government. Just because you are in opposition doesn’t change it one iota.’ Yes, it does, assuming language actually means something. There is a fundamental difference between government and opposition – and the cross-benchers are neither. The concept of collective responsibility does not apply; even if it did, it would not be the collective responsibility of government but the collective responsibility of a parliamentary chamber.
“I am mightily relieved that I am not government!”
I would disagree with my Lady`s above statement. You are part of the decision making process of Government therefore would be seen by the public to be part of it.
In terms of Cabinet,you are not but much depends on definition
“There is never enough in the budget”.
This being true we have to prioritise, put head before heart. Stop immigration, you cannot have more children when not affording what you have. Stop costly new technology such as ID cards and computerised tech that is far out of date by the time it`s implemented. Do something about spiralling costs of housing that costs the Country untold amounts due to greedy landlords and the lack of council housing. Reduce local taxation by reducing inefficient Council policies before owning your own home is equivalent to renting from the council anyway. Tax from source which gives an exact quantity to work with, I`m sure Lord Sugar wouldn`t really mind having £630m rather than £730m. The poor at present pay more as a percentage of earnings in VAT etc.
Those paying more as a percentage in VAT etc., earnt for the rich that which they don`t pay VAT on.
Carl Holbrough: Parliament is not part of the ‘decision making process of Government’. The fact that some members of the public may think it is does not make it so. Government and Parliament are different entities with different constitutional roles.
“Parliament is not part of the ‘decision making process of Government’”.
And there I was thinking the Lords “decided” not allow certain parts of Bills and indeed at times certain bills !!!
Pick a definition
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Government
I believe in the case of schools, policy is thought up by the head but the Governors decide “yes” or “no” is this not Government either ?
Being pedantic about a definition does not mean that if a majority decide you are something, you`re not.
If you really want to be pedantic you can state that “Cabinet” alone is Government yet all in Parliament and the HoL have equal votes as each other when it comes to governing and the law.
Carl Holbrough: It is not being pedantic to point out that there is a fundamental difference between Government and Parliament. That is reflected in dictionary definitions. Govermment in this country is directed formally by the Cabinet, but all ministers form the Government and are bound by the doctrine of collective responsibility. Though ministers by convention are drawn from either House of Parliament (and by convention predominantly the Commons), Government and Parliament perform different tasks. What defines legislatures is that they are bodies for giving assent to measures of public policy that are to be binding, and that assent is given on behalf of a body wider than that which draws up the measures. The executive, or government, is normally responsible for drawing up the measures.
The Legislature is also responsible for those assents to measures of public policy.
One of the tasks of legislature is to scrutinize public policy firstly in Select and Standing committee, and then in the main chamber, where the assent is given.
Standing committees are also legislative bodies, but select committees are not.
Select committees merely scrutinize and hold government departments to account.
Gareth Howell: The legislature is the body (in legal terms, the Queen-in-Parliament) that gives assent. That is what defines a legislature. A legislature may fulfil additional functions (though not all do), such as scrutinising executive actions. That is what select committees do. Standing committees did indeed use to be legislative committees, but they have been superseded by public bill committees.
Down with the numbers?
If the numbers need trimming, then it applies to Commons every bit as much as the Lords, and more so to the civil service in general. The problem of how to cut numbers to good end might be less easily solved. Sadly, it is often not the ineffective and inefficient who get culled in such processes.
Weaker performers can be skilled at hiding their deficiencies and/or deflecting adverse attention from themselves. Whereas those who are good at their jobs are often too busy doing them to notice that their less able colleagues may be jealous and may even be (skilfully) plotting their downfalls. In other words, culls can favour the “politicians” over the productive.
I saw a nasty example of this just last week in a work environment I am peripherally involved in – and not for the first time.
Cutting down the amount of legislation the houses have to consider sounds like a good start.
Jana,
I don’t know that I am keen on culling Members of Parliament or even peers.
There are of course some left wing Labor members who are anti-bi-cameral arrangements, who disappear entirely from public view once they have retired
from the other place.
There are very sound arguments for a unicameral system of government in the UK, especially with the proliferation of Assemblies both legislative and non legislative, in the UK regions and at Strasbourg.
There is no power struggle in the sense that we normally use the term between rank and file MPs! What would be the point?!
We have just had a far reaching re-organization of the second chamber, which was hard fought in debate.
The problems of re-arranging just to have one chamber, are again so far reaching that it is unlikely to occur for a very long time.
The place of the monarch in a uni-cameral
system would probably be the most difficult question of all.
I sometimes wonder whether anybody outside parliament recognized how radical the changes effected by Lord Falconer were, and what the implications.
The safeguard of the elected hereditary peers
was obviously a victory for the political right.
Having two ceremonial Presidents of parliament (and neither of them called that)
takes some thinking about, although I understand Lord Speaker is getting more of a work load than at first envisioned.
Thanx to L Norton for the Public bills committees’ knowledge.
Gareth Howell:
Perhaps I have been misunderstood. I was responding to the post above by a “Gareth Howell”, albeit with a different icon, which said:
“Reduce the number of peers to 250.”
I assume this, in turn, was in response to the reported comments of Sir John Major that: “Government is too big”. This, of course, I took to mean the machinery of government as a whole, not the ‘government’ per se.
My main point was that cutting numbers is often not easy to do well, even if it were a good idea – and upon the latter I did not comment.
There are power struggles in all organizations in which a sufficient number of people are involved. Two can be enough.
Proliferation of assemblies notwithstanding, I do not believe there can be any good argument for unicameral system in the UK. And this is so, despite the fact that the constitutional position of the Queen as Head of State would not of necessity be affected at all by such an arrangement.
It is relevant at this point to mention that I am beaming into this discussion from New Zealand, which operates a unicameral legislature. Legislation in this country is not the richer for it. It is certainly not better drafted, nor do I believe it is likely to be cheaper.
The New Zealand legislature does however benefit, as do many around the world from the UK’s bicameral system, and in particular from the expertise housed in the Lords. UK Bills (& Acts) addressing complex and/or technical subject matter are often grabbed and fed through the legislative process here, being of course reconsidered for local use (e.g. anti-spam legislation).
Unicameral systems are highly susceptible to making bad law in controversial cases by pandering to what is, or seems to be, wanted by the voting public – the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 (NZ) is a notable example. They are also much freer to please their special interest groups.
The best defence is a robust bicameral system, in which the two houses are constituted along meaningfully different lines. If both are slaves to party politics, then rubber-stamping or ‘oppositionitis’ depending on how the numbers happen to fall, are a natural consequence.
I fail to see how the elected hereditary peers are either a safeguard for the monarchy or an obvious victory for the political right.
The hereditary peers may tend to be politically ‘conservative’ (and I mean that in the general sense not merely the party political sense), but then so will most of those possessing the kind of expertise that can create Acts like the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (as discussed in the Baroness Deech’s latest post).
The great benefit with the hereditary peers is that they are not necessarily adherents of one party or another. According to parliament’s website
http://www.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/mps_and_lords/analysis_by_composition.cfm, although 48 hereditary peers sit as conservatives, 33 are cross-benchers.
The long-standing tendency of the Lords (mentioned elsewhere in these pages, though I am not too sure where, or by whom) to be less bound by party-politics must in part be due to their influence in shaping the House, and because of their relative freedom from influence.
Notwithstanding legislation that has nearly completely pushed them out, the hereditary peers also come with their own source of legitimacy – they have been there as of right for a very, very long time.
Clearly some traditions, such as hanging people – however popular its reintroduction might be – are better gone. Overall, the hereditary peers don’t seem to have done a bad job. Their loss, and with it perhaps the loss of their peculiar brand of independence, is not to be applauded.
There can be no doubt that the Lords has been hugely enriched by the introduction of the life peers, but there seems to be no particular reason why the tradition of some hereditary peers sitting should not continue.
Tradition, after all, has given us a much finer Head of State than elections served up to the United States in the form of George W. Bush.
Bicameral systems such as the UK haven’t prevented disasterous legislation or fraud by politicians.
As you point out Jana, all politicians are open to preasures. Bribery to toeing the party line.
However, the electorate isn’t. If all bills have to be approved by a referenda, you can’t easily bribe the electorate [There are ways, you just give the bill to the next generation]
This also deals with the problem that people aren’t interested in politics, because basically any vote is a vote for a ‘representative’ [who then toes the party line and not a vote for a policy.
Even a vote for a manifesto is a vote for a set of policies and is sub optimal.
As I keep pointing out and the Lords keep ignoring it, there is no cost control. They won’t justify the near 2,000 pounds a day per Lord.
They can’t justify their failures either. Habeaus Corpus has gone. Trials where you don’t know the evidence. They have all allowed it and the list is longer.
So as a Kiwi, can you tell me of a law that the UK should have and NZ shouldn’t have?
The Lords have stated that the UK is more complex and needs more laws.
Nick
My Noble Lord Norton it was not my intention to offend, so sincere apologies if I did.
I will try one last time to clarify, should I fail I shall deem it my fault for being unable to communicate my points on how Parliament is viewed. Obviously from the inside that view maybe entirely different.
Direct.gov.uk`s A-Z of Central Government under “H” we find the “House of Lords”.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Dl1/Directories/A-ZOfCentralGovernment/index.htm?indexChar=H
“A Government is the body within a community, political entity or organization which has the authority to make and enforce rules, laws and regulations.”
Everyone within Parliament is part of that process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government
Now this next goes someway to your point of view, which I`ll come to later.
“The government is fused with Parliament”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_Majesty's_Government
Last paragraph
“The reality on the ground is that ‘parliament’ is the government”
http://britishconstitution.blogspot.com/2007/04/separation-of-powers.html
I can completely understand where my Noble Lord is coming from but it seems to be a question of context. Whereas I may use the word “Government” as a generalisation, my Lord inside the House will see that as a specific item, seperate to the HoL and opposition.
The reality from the public`s point is that “Parliament” and “Government” are inseperable. However if spoke in a particular context can refer specifically to the “Labour Government”.
Interpretation of Law or in this case system rests not with law or system but judge.
Carl Holbrough: It is correct that government is sometimes employed as a generic term for the core institutions of the state (executive, legislature, judiciary). Its use is misleading when we look at the functions of the different institutions, since we use the term Government to denote the executive and the legislature is not part of the executive. Government and Parliament fulfil different functions. The fact that some people cannot distinguish between them is what generates a great deal of confusion. The statement that ‘The reality on the ground that ‘parliament’ is the government’ reflects that confusion. Parliament is not the Government. Government in this country is chosen through elections to the House of Commons, and ministers are drawn from and remain within Parliament, but Government is distinct from Parliament. There is a separation of powers in this country, just as there is in the USA. The term ‘separation of powers’ used in the context of presidential systems is another misleading term, since it does not actually mean what it says: what it refers to is separate election and thus separate personnel and electoral legitimacies. It is the Government which draws up the budget and the principal measures of legislation: it is the legislature that debates and assents (or declines to give assent) to them.
I thank the Noble Lord Norton for his time and efforts on this.
Carl,
What I suspect is going on is this. Politicians are looking for what is called a plausible excuse.
ie. If you can pass the blame to ‘government’ then you can plausibly deny you had any involvement.
So Lord Norton is trying to say that he has no control over the laws because that is controlled by government (defined as the party in power) as opposed to the opposition (the parties not in power).
Now you and I have a different definition. We view government as the collection of people who are governing us. Government is the group of people who get to decide on laws and tell us what to do.
However, what is interesting is that it is more evidence that the Lords do not matter. After all if the laws are decided by the government, Lord Norton isn’t really making the law. If he’s not making the law, why are we paying 1,800 pounds a day, per lord, for nothing?
Major still gets it all wrong, you should have asked if he would re-nationalise the railways.
He pretty regularly arises to troll on the BBC’s morning news programmes, always to be announced as making one of his rare perfprmances . .
. . . invariable to coruscate HMG when they have been doing something Geo Osborne (BART) might come round to in a few days time.
Amusingly it has been mooted that such as he may return to Government should Chameleon get lucky, but chances of this catastrophic eventuality are not widely believed to be enhanced by Sir John’s looming presence . . .
Hi Nick
“Bicameral systems such as the UK haven’t prevented disasterous legislation or fraud by politicians.”
& neither will they, but it is better to have checks and balances than not.
“…all politicians are open to preasures. Bribery to toeing the party line.
However, the electorate isn’t…”
I think I have to disagree, the electorate seems singularly open to bribery. The last election in NZ was won on promises of nice juicy tax cuts for most – amid cries from the former government that these were not affordable – after the election … lo! & behold! All the promised tax cuts could no longer be afforded – because of course the former government had withheld the full figures!
“a law that the UK should have and NZ shouldn’t have”
Try these (all from the same year, and all still on the books):
• Bermuda Constitution Act 1967 (c. 63)
• Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 (c. 86)
• Greenwich Hospital Act 1967 (c.74)
• Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Act 1967 (c. 67)
• Llangollen International Musical Eisteddfod Act 1967 (c.49)
• Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (c.77)
New Zealand does of course have similar legislation to all of these.
“the UK is more complex and needs more laws”
It is.
Even without considering legislation on the books that relates to overseas territories, and parts of the former empire, the UK comprises multiple jurisdictions: England & Wales; Scotland; & Northern Ireland being the most common three way split, but some laws for example only apply to Wales – there is a Bill about marriages in Wales going through the mill at the moment which will only apply there. We have not yet considered other parts of the British Isles, such as the Isle of Mann and the Channel Islands. And then there is all the legislation required to take part in the EU.
By comparison, and again, without considering legislation on the books that relates to overseas territories and such, New Zealand is just New Zealand.
I am not really sure that adjusting for these differences, NZ would have materially fewer laws on the statute books. It might look that way if you just counted up the number of laws passed by the parliament of New Zealand, but one thing to remember is that we have laws like the English Law Act 1858 (or I think that’s the year), which brought all English law that could be seen to be relevant to the colony into effect as though it had been so as of January 1840. This law is still on the books – except in so far as it has been later repealed – yet will not appear in any list of NZ legislation per se.
Lets take them in term.
Bermuda – for Bermuda, not for the UK
Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 Here the question arises again. Why does Scotland need a separate act from the UK? There is the equivalent law in the England for rights of way, planning, compenstation for land. I’m sure that New Zealand has a similar act.
Lets take them in term.
Bermuda – for Bermuda, not for the UK
Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 Here the question arises again. Why does Scotland need a separate act from the UK? There is the equivalent law in the England for rights of way, planning, compenstation for land. I’m sure that New Zealand has a similar act.
You argument seems to be because there are separate legistlatures in the UK that because each choose to enact similar laws, that there is a difference.
ie. Each is effectively implementing a variant of the same law.
The legistalation for the EU comes from the EU. It’s a rubber stamp. Not created here.
So bar taxation, (which the Lords have no say over), there are no real differences.
Quite why too we need more and more legistlation is also farcical.