Cracking news

Despatch Box in the Atrium

At the end of the afternoon yesterday, I popped over to the Despatch Box in the Atrium in Portcullis House for a cup of tea.  The plan was to get on with essay marking, but as usual various people saw me and we ended up dealing with parliamentary business.   I had not even got to the Despatch Box before an MP saw me and came to discuss matters relating to an all-party group.  As I was having my tea, a minister came over to pursue an issue I had raised with him, and as I was leaving I bumped into an MP and a peer and spent some time exchanging views on parliamentary tactics. 

It was only when I got back to my office that I saw this news item, reporting that earlier in the afternoon a pane of glass in the roof of the Atrium had cracked and the area had had to be secured.  I was completely oblivious to the fact that anything had happened and certainly by the time I arrived everyone was acting as normal.   Either that or I was so engrossed in what I was doing I completely missed what was happening in the vicinity.  It has been known…

Eminent Parliamentarians

Readers may be interested in this forthcoming publication from Biteback Publishing – it is the collection of Speaker’s Centenary Lectures, delivered last year on outstanding parliamentarians of the past century.  I delivered the lecture on Enoch Powell and subsequently took on the task of preparing the lectures for publication. 

You can read more details here.  The book will be appearing in July, in hardback at the eminently reasonable price of £20.  Feel free to place your order so that you can receive a copy as soon as it comes off the presses.

The chapters seek to reflect as faithfully as possible the lectures as delivered.  Each is preceded by a short biographical note.

‘But Margaret I take longer to dress than you…’

Lord St John of Fawsley

Last week, I attended the memorial service for Lord St John of Fawsley (Norman St John-Stevas).  Lord Lamont gave the address and Cardinal Cormack Murphy-O’Connor gave the tribute.  Both recounted stories reflecting the wit of the flamboyant politician.   Even on his death bed he retained his sense of humour.  The Cardinal recorded that he was visited by a nun who, forgetting he was not a priest, said on leaving ‘Goodbye Father’, to which she received the response ‘Monsigner please’.

Norman Lamont in a superb speech recalled the story, variously re-told, of Norman St John Stevas rising to leave a Cabinet meeting, explaining he had to go and change in time for another event.  ‘But Norman’, said Margaret Thatcher, ‘I’m going to the same event’ .  ‘I know’, came the response, ‘but I take longer to dress than you do.’

After the service, one former Conservative MP saw me and was very keen to set the record straight.   The exchange did take place, he said – he was present at the meeting – but it did not occur in Cabinet but rather in Shadow Cabinet.  I have not yet had an opportunity to verify it with anyone else who was present, but I thought it worthwile putting it on the record.

I’m over here…

David Blunkett

I attended this evening the latest of the Speaker’s Lectures on Parliament and Government given by David Blunkett in his capacity as a former Home Secretary.  At the last lecture, when I was sat at the back in the dark, the Speaker, John Bercow, confused me with Sir Peter Tapsell.  This evening, he opened by looking into the audience and asking if I was present.  I waved my arms – at which point he realised I was sat on the front row!

The reason he asked if I was present was in order to draw attention to the fact that I had attended every one of the sixteen Speaker’s lectures that had taken place since the inauguration of the series at the beginning of 2011.   He suggested I should be eligible for a medal.  Mention of my name then prompted David Blunkett to open by drawing attention to the fact that we were at university together.  ‘While I was busy in the Student Union’, he recalled, ‘Philip was busy in the Library, to good effect’.  

Anyway, I already have the next two lectures in the diary.  By the end of the year, I may have the Distinguished Attendance Medal  – and bar.

Debating the Queen’s Speech

I have just done a post on Lords of the Blog about the State Opening of Parliament.  It was the usual grand occasion.  One of the themes was constitutional reform, though the reference to reform of the House of Lords was somewhat opaque.  On Thursday, we began debating the Queen’s Speech, with two days – Thursday and next Monday – given over to constitutional issues. 

I spoke on Thursday (col. 97, following Lord Owen’s speech) and addressed the subject from the perspective of process and substance.  Government still has problems getting to grips with the qualitatively distinct nature of constitutional change.  On the subject of Lords reform, it has proceeded by way of assertion rather than justification.  It still has not properly engaged in debate.  In opening the debate, the Leader of the House, Lord Strathclyde, did not exactly add substantially to the sum of human knowledge.  He did, though, adopt the interesting approach of saying that in order to make progress there needed to be a consensus among the parties, one of which he promptly attacked.

The Conservative challenge

There is much media discussion as to what the Prime Minister needs to do to restore the fortunes of the Conservative Party.  Various strategies are being proferred: take a more robust line on this or that policy, move the party in this or that direction.   What much of the discussion misses is the fundamental reason why the Conservative Party was the party of government for most of the 20th Century – and why it ceased to be so at the end of the century.

The Conservative Party was successful because it was able to convey that it was a competent party of government, primarily in handling the finances of the nation.  That sense of competence was reinforced by unity, leadership and a sense of public service.  The perception of competence in handling the public finances was lost in 1992 following Black Wednesday.  Party support in the polls collapsed.   There were also party splits (not least over European integration), divisions over the party leadership, and public service appeared to be replaced by self interest.   The splits over issues such as Europe reinforced the Government’s unpopularity but they were not the cause of it.  

At the end of the day, Bill Clinton got it right: ‘It’s the economy, stupid’.  Focusing on other issues does not get to the heart of it.  The Government has to demonstrate that it is competent in handling the affairs of the nation, especially the economy.   In that respect, it has the advantage denied it when the electors put it into Opposition – it is still in Government and has time to act.  But there needs to be a very clear understanding as to the essentials of the problem.

Do we need to tighten voting procedures?

Turnout at yesterday’s local elections is estimated to be about 32 per cent, the lowest for twelve years.  The danger is that this may further encourage demands to make it easier to vote.  We have already introduced procedures to make it easier to cast ballots, not least through postal voting on demand.   Though measures are being taken to prevent fraud, I am not persuaded these are enough and, in any event, I am not sure that making it easier to vote tackles the problem it is designed to address.  There is little evidence that non-voting is a result of the procedures for voting.  If people felt sufficiently motivated to vote, they would vote.  The answer lies with the behaviour and policies of politicians, not with structures and procedures.