Westminster: all change!.........

Now that Scotsbore is largely history we may now look forward (?) to an extended debate about the constitutional fall-out, with the political pundits and chattering classes proposing all kinds of crack-pot solutions.

 

Labour will try to revive regional governments to create a quasi-federal system. The fact that ten years ago the electorate roundly rejected the notion of yet another layer of government being loaded onto peoples’ overloaded  backs is of no consequence to Miliband. He is another who believes that ’the gentleman from Whitehall really does know best’.

 

Perhaps Cameron might care to use the ‘Crown Dependency’ option. Scotland would then have all powers except defence, foreign affairs, immigration, customs, the currency and a few odds-and-sods; full taxation powers; full responsibility to run – and pay for – all services, its own bank-notes for internal use only. Of course, it would have no MPs in Westminster, so that would solve the West Lothian question at a stroke

 

There is already much talk about an ‘English Parliament’ and an English First Minister. What for? The notion is that the UK Parliament would only deal with UK-wide issues. How these will be determined is not explained, since some ‘English-only’ legislation would have an impact elsewhere in the UK. Neither are we given any clues as to the role of the House of Lords, or the composition of the two Parliaments bearing in mind that the existing House of Commons already has too little work and there are far too many members.

 

The Commons has 650 Members. The Lords has 760. The US Congress has 435 Representatives and 100 Senators. We can be reasonably confident that an English Parliament will be an increment, not a substitute, so there will be yet another layer of politicians and bureaucrats; but it is the people not the politicians who suffer from over-government. The latter thrive on it.

 

Cameron’s first move gives a clue as to how he sees the prospect of the biggest constitutional revolution since 1688. He has appointed lame-duck William Hague to chair a special Cabinet Committee in the expectation that it will all be sorted by next May. Given that time-scale the outcome can’t be anything other than a complete shambles. If the job is to be done properly it will have to look in detail at governance overall and answer the ‘who does what?’ question.

 

The first step should be what consultants term a ‘prior options review’.

 

In simple terms, this requires every function of every Government Department to be thoroughly scrutinised. The options are, first, stop doing it!  There is an inertia in large organisations that can lead to  things continuing to be done long after their original purpose has ceased (in the 1950s an Army depot carried saddlery to supply a complete cavalry division although the cavalry had become motorised at least 30 years earlier). The next decisions will cover ‘no change’, move to another department, move to another authority such as local government, privatise, contract-out, or shift to a statutory body, government-owned company, or a quasi- or non-governmental institution.

 

If this is done properly, the outcome should be right-sized government with decisions taken at the lowest level following a major shift of power out of Westminster. Sadly, it has been Conservative governments that have concentrated government in the hands of an increasingly remote and disdainful  central elite; Heath with his reorganisation of local government and the courts which abolished counties and the assizes that had existed since medieval times, and Thatcher with her centralising urge that turned councils into Westminster satraps.

 

At the very least this constitutional debate should aim to shift power downwards, not sideways. It could be achieved in the 5-year lifetime of a new Parliament. But not in 7 months or by a coalition government.

 

It is more likely is that the whole issue will be kicked down the Yellow-brick Road. Then we can revert to what we do best. Muddling through.