Tony Benn was blown away in excitement. The Guardian was awash in ecstasy. The
Times declared a warm welcome. The Conservative press was impressed.
Political academics were “giddy at this unique moment”. What had the new
prime minister, Gordon Brown, done?
The media reception for Brown’s first week in office has been absurd. He was
praised to the skies for passing his first “terror bomb test”, a gift to any
reasonably competent politician, rewarded with a 10-point shot in the polls.
Then Westminster went into a huddle and decided Brown had “blown” his first
prime minister’s questions. He made two mild slips and failed the humour and
hokey-cokey challenge at which Tony Blair was so good. It was like welcoming
Tito Gobbi on stage and complaining he did not sing castrato.
The cause of Brown’s other welcome was his statement on constitutional reform,
presented with the fervent gravitas of John Knox. Here, Brown implied, the
constitutional tectonic plates were shifting. Long ago power passed from
monarch to parliament, then from parliament to the executive. Now it was to
pass back to parliament and the people. Brown then cried at his congregation
of sinners: “Consult and be judged.”
At this point any scholar of Brown studies counts his spoons. Most of this
stuff we have heard before. The prime minister has long talked the talk
about trust, empowerment and popular engagement. Yet as chancellor he never
walked the walk. The only bodies to which he delegated anything were the
Scots parliament and the Bank of England, and the latter is coming unstuck.
Anyone scanning the list of changes is entitled to ask, “Does he mean it?”
New Labour has never been able to deliver on its speeches.
Most of Brown’s list were rusty implements in the constitutional toolshed,
either executive powers more apparent than real, or ones whose delegation
will prove more apparent than real. Let the Church of England appoint its
own bishops. Surely a historian of the great Scottish Disruption of 1843
could chance his arm mooting the disestablishment of the English church.
Parliament can now declare war, dissolve parliament, ratify treaties and
cross-examine quango appointees. But it always has, de facto. There is no
mention of allowing free votes on such occasions or allowing select
committees the right of veto, as with the American Congress.
Welcome is the rescinding of various Blair egotisms, such as unelected aides
entitled to give orders to civil servants and illicit protests outside
Downing Street. The first was sparked, I am told, by the cabinet secretary,
Gus O’Donnell, flatly refusing to allow Brown’s closest but most abusive and
overbearing aide, Shriti Vadera, architect of rail and Tube privatisation,
to cross the threshold of No 10 as policy enforcer. No permanent secretary
could stand her, so Brown had to fob her off with junior office and a
peerage.
Equally welcome is Brown’s decision to end Blair’s use of the attorney-general
as a legal spin doctor and his disregard for the ethical vetting of
ministers. This suggests that Brown is of a more liberal temper than Blair.
But where is the main course? From his 1992 Charter 88 speech to his 2005 Hugo
Young lecture, Brown has demanded more trust in politicians, more power for
parliament and more devolution to civic government and community
empowerment. Yet he fights shy when it comes to implementation.
There is no withdrawing the whips from Commons committees, no granting them
properly paid chairmen or executive obedience to their scrutiny. While the
media always laud them as “influential”, ministers laugh and Whitehall burns
their reports. The public accounts committee is about as effective in
disciplining agency performance, computer contracts or the aid budget as the
audit committee of Enron or BAE Systems. There is no point in letting
parliamentarians cross-examine unelected quango appointees if they cannot
first veto their appointment.
Parliament’s decision on dissolving parliament is meaningless, given that the
decision is bound to be whipped or the result of a backbench rebellion and
vote of no confidence as now. There is no point in yet another code of
conduct for ministers if Downing Street retains the power to overrule it. As
for a new “consultation” on a written constitution, some of us have been
debating that since we were in short trousers.
Brown’s intentions are all in the right direction. But his track record is of
a persistent disconnect between brain and hand. The most dysfunctional part
of the constitution, by general consent, concerns the linkage between policy
and decision at the top and delivery down the line. Since Blair snapped
those links with his “24/7 headline” style of government, the civil service
Rolls-Royce has been going round in circles.
Brown’s love of targetry and ring-fenced grants has failed the delivery test
and led to a larger core civil service than ever in peacetime. Now, with
localism the talk of the Rialto, Brown offers merely a “concordat” between
local and central government, a continuation of Blair’s “empowerment by
consultation”. The appointment of regional ministers revives an abortive
Tory gimmick.
Regional government was a top-down Thatcherite innovation that has been in
expensive operation since 1994 with no ounce of local consent. When put to
the test of referendum in the northeast of England in 2004 it was rejected.
People wanted power to rest with their cities and counties. John Prescott
and Brown disagreed.
I sense that deep in Brown’s political psyche is a realisation that democracy
should reflect the citizen’s yearning for more control over his environment.
It is a spirit that moved the Scottish enlightenment, English utilitarianism
and, for that matter, Thatcherism’s “market consumerism”, which guided most
of Blair’s public service reforms.
Brown seems to understand that declining political activity reflects not just
the apathy of prosperity but a readiness to leave general decisions on
priorities to Whitehall oligarchs. But he is not yet up to implementing what
this means.
It is no good central government simply “consulting” the people, as in Ruth
Kelly’s new Leninist planning regime. Political activism has become local
rather than national, concerned with town and country planning, street
safety and cleanliness, hospital standards and neighbourhood immigration,
domestic as well as foreign. Unique in Europe, Britain’s central government
claims these tasks and yet is bad at performing them. Local government on
the whole works and offers a framework for social responsibility that Brown
still will not accept.
Significantly Brown’s first two quasi-constitutional measures run directly
counter to his declaration. One was to inflict yet another central review on
the NHS, when the latter is screaming to be left alone for just one minute.
The other was Hazel Blears’s proposal to hand such discretionary funds as
Brown has left to local government over to neighbourhood “stakeholders” to
spend by plebiscite or public meeting. This is to be “an experiment”.
Blears seems unaware that it was normal vestry administration from the 16th to
the 19th centuries and is customary in American townships and France’s
36,000 communes. Nor will she allow elected councils to raise and spend
resources through local taxation. This is not localism but tokenism.
Brown is adamant that public services cannot be left to the mercy of local
democracy when that democracy lacks financial accountability. But he will
not grant it that accountability, regarding local finance as a morass into
which he dares not tread.
Those of us who have been preaching localism for years know only speeches and
bitter disappointment from politicians. Brown professes to want a government
that can revive citizenship and reinvigorate democracy, “humble enough to
know its place” and “trust more power to the British people”. But he does
not put words into action.
He is no longer at the Treasury, where control demanded he master all he
surveyed. He is now prime minister, young, eager and with everything to go
for. Unlike Blair, he knows what needs to be done. Can he not summon up the
courage to do it?
The underlying rule in politics is that people judge ministers by what they actually achieve, and not by what they professed to achieve. It does appear that although many of the proposed reforms are well intentioned, they are of little substance. Indeed, Parliament has had authority to administer many important constitutional happenings in the past and naturally continues to do so, whether it be the conduct of war or treaty ratification. Pressure and compulsion from both Houses would almost inevitably lead the government to cave in over particular issues, and would be subject to the former’s demands. This is, of course, a healthy constitutional checks and balances procedure. Trust in politics waines due to the perceived mistrust in the political machine, and local government empowerment spectacularly fails under the tight scrutiny and watchful eye of Whitehall. An import of federalist ideology is most required. Mr Brown, pragmatic reform is required – do not squander your chances.
Marcin Roth, London, UK
Constitutional reform requires an independent institution - otherwise it will be gerrymandered to suit party political advantage.
The House of Lords refused even to debate the recent issue of excluding MPs from Freedom of Information obligations - it has proved to be a bastion against over-bearing government legislation - it will almost certainly be 'modernised' to bring it into line with party politics - which are hopelessly unrepresentative.
Peter York, Tonbridge, Kent
Another NHS review!
This review however is simple obfuscation. The cock-up that is the workforce planning for junior doctors is now complicated by a mixture of neglect and fear among our so-called leaders. Fear, in that they know that the system is beyond the addled thinking of their vaunted MMC/MTAS; neglect in that if nothing is done immediately to expand the junior doctor's training post provision then there will be a major exodus of expensively trained UK doctors in 22 days with obvious potential tragedies.
Only immediate and decisive action will save the day. Perhaps the acceptance of the next year as an open training year, where all junior doctors are awarded training status could solve the problem, but little else will.
So what do we have from Brown and his men? Another review, chaired by one of NuLab's last remaining sycophantic professors, with a record of sound judgements in the Sir Humphrey sense!
Action is needed, not talk!
David L. Cox, Loggerheads, UK
The obvious question is, how much independent control does he have of either? I think you adequately answer that question by your remark, “I sense that deep in Brown’s political psyche is a realisation that democracy should reflect the citizen’s yearning for more control over his environment.†This is about as frank a statement of a regime, within which Brown is subservient, as one could expect to find in the Press. Since Gordon Brown has been busy centralising the funding of this country for the past 10 years, for a reason which nobody can acknowledge, I don’t have much confidence in any statements from him that imply decentralisation. I think he is to be seen in this context as a hugely vulnerable individual; not a man of power.
Henry Percy, London, UK
Lord forbid Brown does put any more words into action. His tax credits system is a byword for chaos and he has single-handedly destroyed non-public sector pensions. It's not going to get any better. His recent reshuffle, for example, leaves further/adult education under the jurisdiction of no less than four different bodies - three departments of state plus the local education authority. Byzantine doesn't come near it.
Ed, London,
And then there's the EU, now the source of about 80% of our new laws, none of which can be rejected or significantly amended by Parliament, and many of which do not even pass through Parliament, plus on top of that ongoing affront to parliamentary democracy the planned stitch-up to deprive us of the promised referendum on the EU constitution.
Denis Cooper, Maidenhead, Berkshire
Pigs might fly. I have no confidence whatever that Brown, Cameron or Campbell would really make 'localism' happen. I also confess to some worry whether local people are really willing to get involved in a proper responsible way, but we ought to do it. Brown at the Treasury showed him a control freak; Cameron's rough arrogant bossiness with his own party doesn't augur well and as for Campbell who knows; he seems more concerned to face down challenges to his position.
Brown is the only one able to show by his actions how genuine he is. Will he give us a referendum on the EU treaty? If he refuses he will have fallen at the first hurdle.
Dr J Findlater, Carnforth,
Aside from giving the Scots two bites of the electoral cherry, the purpose of spending an obscene amount of taxpayers money (400k) on a scottish parliament is lost on me. All the ambitious scots, gordon brown being principle amongst them, head straight for the glamour and clamour of westminster, leaving their less ambitious and single-issue countrymen to fill the scottish parliament benches.
The west lothian question aside (not that it isn't more pressing than ever with brown as PM), what kind of change can we realistically expect from a PM, who as a very influential and powerful chancellor of the exchequor, left the working classes paying a higher percentage of their income in taxation than their high income counterparts?
As for social justice and the reduction of crime, how will this ever be achieved by a government with an ear to the undemocratic demands of minority pressure groups and the politically correct, and a deaf ear to the cries of the law-abiding majority?
will richards, worcester, England
Gordon Brown gave 8 Billion pounds of British taxpayers money for Africa.......... and just 14Million pounds for BRITISH flood victims.
That about sums up what he thinks of the people of Britain.
Susannah Forrest, Harrogate, Yorks
All we wanted was a settlement of West Lothian and the Barnet formula, and a Referendum on leaving the EU and if not on whether to accept the new Treaty.
We got neither. And all the rest is meaningless spin and rubbish
Robert Sebag-Montefiore, Geneva, Switzerland
No he cannot change, lets not forget, he has been in power for 10 years. He is not new to the cabinet. Bliars vews are his views, he should go to the country.
A. P. Steer, Saltash, England
The town doesn't represent much of a social reality. Most of the shops will be branches of chains with national administration and marketing strategies. The same for the majority of employers, and the workforces will tend to be drawn from a car commute radius of about thirty miles. The middle-class workers will usually be brought up in one town, attend university in another, and get the first career job in a third. Traffic laws have to be essentially the same across the country, and even the physical boundaries between towns can be hard to determine, on a car journey from one to the next.
In that sort of culture, it is very hard to achieve a meaningful local democracy. The football team is usually the most important institution that is genuinely local. Politicians try to reinvigorate local institutions, but they are defeated by the force of the internal combustion engine.
Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK
It might be surprising that Codification of the Law seems to have no place in current UK political agendas, given that crime is an issue of concern.
Arguably, reduction of the responsibilities and obligations of citizenship to a relatively simple numerical classification which can be easily understood, and form a part of compulsory school curriculum, might account for lower crime incidence and a more positive attitude of the majority to law and order in countries where codification is enshrined in the constitution.
dr venables preller, Warminster, UK
Absolute drivel. Yesterday the Times published an article about Poles returning home, completely missing the point of the common market. For any common market you must have complete flexibility of labour and goods. Would you expect my Uncle, resident of Spain for 30 years and with a very good job in a higher educaion institution to return home to the South Wales Valleys having been away for so long!??! Bring it on.
Jon Kingsbury, Southampton, UK
Brown has no courage - surely that much is obvious!
Charlotte, Worcester, England
Simon Jenkins --How right you are about Brown.
£Billions of our taxes can be thrown around and lost on Foreign Aid, and yet our Tax Paying citizens needing a great deal of help (no fault of their own) gets just a weak response from Brown.
It's not the fault of citizens they do not have Insurance, many can't afford it.
Barbara, Norwich , Norfolk
I want to sincerely congradulate the law enforcment branches that have caught the terrorists regarding the car bombing episode in England. I hope and pray that we Americans can do the same. I hope in America politics stops, and a United America faces the war on terror that must happen in the free Western world. It seems in my country the only thing I hear about are bashing of one party or another and no one is doing anything about our security. This war on terror is a long time advent. its a religious war, nothing like we have ever fought before. It must be won, not only by the United States and England, but by the free Western countries in general.
Denny Taylor, Sumner, Washington, USA
Hit the nail on the head as usual. This is an ideal opportunity for David Cameron, pushing for localism. It would be surprising if Gordon Brown were to pay any more than lip service to this process as it would require a major volte face on his part.
T Papworth, Yerevan, Armenia