Tory proposals are designed to fatally wound Labour by 2015

February 18, 2010 10:21 am

Rose

The Paul Richards Column

I have this friend. For the sake of the story, let us call her Jo. She has a conviction that at the very top of politics, there is no such thing as happenstance or coincidence. Every move is a calculation, there’s a motive behind every utterance, and no one just does stuff. It’s all part of a plan. In short: there are no cock-ups, only conspiracies. For Jo, the pleasure of politics is in working out who’s playing who, and why. The scary thing is that most of the time, she’s right. Not every conspiracy works, and of course there is more than one going on at any one time. But if you view the actions of senior politicians through this lens, it explains an awful lot of seemingly random actions.

Take three recent announcements by the Conservative Party on what they would do in their first term in office, should such a calamity befall the nation.

The first is David Cameron’s firm pledge to introduce a system where only MPs in English seats vote on legislation affecting England. Scottish, Welsh and Ulster MPs would be banned from voting on these issues. This idea has been bubbling away inside the Conservative Party since devolution to Scotland and Wales a decade ago, as their answer to the thirty-year old West Lothian question. Then-leader William Hague said in 1999 that “people will become increasingly resentful that decisions are being made in England by people from other parts of the UK on matters that that English people did not have a say on elsewhere.” The situation was exacerbated in 2004 when 40 Scottish MPs helped the government push through the highly controversial bill introducing university tuition fees for England.

In 2008 Ken Clarke MP, then chair of the Tories’ ‘democracy taskforce’ published a proposal for restrictions on non-English seat MPs voting on some of the stages of bills which affect England. David Cameron said recently: “for English-only legislation, we would have a sort of English Grand Committee. That is our intention and what is likely to go in the manifesto.”

Such a move would endanger the Union, and create a two-tier Westminster Parliament, and so the Tories’ policy should be opposed on principle. But it would also massively favour the Conservative Party, because if it is in a position to enact its plans after the 2010 election, it will have won scores of new seats in England. English votes for English laws in effect means Tory votes for English laws.

The second announcement is Cameron’s plan to cut the size of the House of Commons by around 60 MPs. Speaking to the Financial Times in January, Cameron said “I think the House of Commons could do the job that it does with 10% fewer MPs without any trouble at all.” He said the Tories could legislate in their first term for an urgent boundary review so that all seats had roughly the same number of electors in time for the general election that followed. Cameron will propose this in the general context of anti-Parliamentary feeling in the country. I pity those who might have to oppose the idea – arguing for the status quo against such a seemingly radical policy. Cameron’s spin doctors have since confirmed that this would be a “first-term priority”. But where would the axe fall? On Wales, and the English cities, where Labour would have most of its MPs, even after a Conservative win. That means Cameron would fix the system by abolishing Labour seats in the first term to make it easier to win a second term. Analysis by John Curtice at Strathclyde University suggests a smaller Commons would exaggerate swings, and “would improve the Tory chances of winning”.

The third announcement appeared in the Telegraph last week, and it concerned Cameron’s desire to reform party funding. Since the cross-party talks on party funding reforms broke down in 2006, Cameron has made it clear that the Tories will legislate to cap all donations to parties (£50,000 is the latest figure). That means any individual or institution can only give up to £50,000. It makes sense if your party is funded by rich people and companies. If your party is funded by trade unions, it sounds a death knell. Cameron’s point-man on the negotiations Andrew Tyrie MP made union funding the sticking point, and the casus belli for the Tories breaking up the talks. The Labour Party is now reliant on the big four trade unions, not just for election posters and leaflets, but to pay the staff wages and utilities bills at head office. If each union could only give £50,000, Labour would cease to exist as a functioning organisation.

Taken on face value, each of these proposals, which will appear in the Tories’ manifesto in a few weeks’ time, sound reasonable. None will upset the electorate, or even attract too much controversy in the campaign. But each is carefully calibrated to undermine Labour’s effectiveness in Parliament, and fatally wound our chances of winning the election after next. They add up to a concerted attempt to kill off the Labour Party by a series of fixes and fiddles. It may just be a happenstance that the Tory policies have as their by-product a series of lethal blows to Labour.

Unless you believe there’s no such thing as coincidence in politics…

Comments are closed

Latest

  • Featured Austin Mitchell showed us why people hate politicians

    Austin Mitchell showed us why people hate politicians

    Whilst I was out at the weekend campaigning in Hampstead & Kilburn to get the brilliant Tulip Sadiq elected Austin Mitchell picked up his poised pen and with one article brought shame to our PLP. Not only were his comments ageist and sexist – in the extreme – he also demonstrated complete contempt for both our party and his constituents. In doing so confirmed every disengaged voter’s fear about the politicians – that they’re only in it for themselves – […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Britain has to fight ISIS, but should be wary of their trap

    Britain has to fight ISIS, but should be wary of their trap

    Yesterday night the terrorist group Islamic State released a video in which they beheaded the American journalist James Foley. I would not recommend watching it. The ISIS video was gruesome but it showed more than tragedy – it was also a carefully constructed act of propaganda. And its important we take that into account before deciding on a response. The video begins with President Obama talking about air-strikes against Islamic State. It ends with the executioner telling the camera: “[A]ny […]

    Read more →
  • News Chuka Umunna sets out Labour’s long-term plan for economic growth

    Chuka Umunna sets out Labour’s long-term plan for economic growth

    Chuka Umunna, the Shadow Business Secretary, will today highlight how the Government’s Regional Growth Fund will miss its investment target by almost £1billion – a failure that will lead to “long-term economic decline”. He will slam the “flagship” scheme as being “mired in chaos and delay”. In a speech to local businesses in North London, Umunna will also set out “Agenda 2030″, Labour’s long-term plan to build a new economy that is based on a highly-skilled, highly-paid workforce. This plan […]

    Read more →
  • Featured Why we keep messing up in the Middle East

    Why we keep messing up in the Middle East

    Britain’s history of failure in the Middle East is 150 years old. The presence of Britain in the region, first as a superpower, then as an ally of the United States, has been a continual source of chaos and instability. Throughout those years, from the occupation of Egypt in 1882 to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, our failure has had a single cause: we’ve constantly over-estimated the power of military force to create peace and order. To start with, […]

    Read more →
  • News Miliband spokesperson slaps down Austin Mitchell over views on female MPs

    Miliband spokesperson slaps down Austin Mitchell over views on female MPs

    Austin Mitchell caused a stir (not for the first time) this weekend, with an article in the Mail on Sunday. In it, Mitchell suggested that a more female Parliament would be “preoccupied with the local rather than the international (not necessarily a bad thing) and small problems rather than big ideas and issues”.  Understandably, Mitchell’s comments received plenty of criticism, and now a spokesperson for the Labour leader has weighed in on the row, branding his comments “ridiculous and wrong”. […]

    Read more →