http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/

Things I particularly like about the new high speed line:

• That it will from the start run on to destination further north using existing conventional rail.
• The y-shape is the obvious solution to linking all Britain’s major conurbations north of London. It would be foolish to exclude Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds and Newcastle, as Network Rail proposed.
• The use of longer trains to increase capacity (400 meter compared to 207 meter just now).
• The prospect of effectively transforming the existing West Coast, East Coast and Midland Main Lines into commuter routes.
• If you assume that similar time savings could be made if and when the high speed lines are extended to Scotland, this would encourage modal shift away from aviation.

My only concerns would be that, by running high speed trains to the north on conventional tracks, does this then preclude us from linking the new network directly to High Speed 1 and Europe? My thinking is that we already use a different gauge on the conventional network to that used by trains in the Channel Tunnel. I would argue that, in the long term, we’d be better to wait for a continental guage network to be extended to the north. You’d then be able to travel from Edinburgh to Paris in the same time that it currently takes to get to London.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/4od#3040946

Rawnsley picks out the key moments since the 2005 general election – Cameron’s slick PR in his leadership campaign and his detoxifying  of the party, then Brown’s summer poll bounce and his subsequent slump after the election that never was.

He also notes the big challenges facing the Conservatives if they win in 2010 – the need to annoy a lot of people with deep public spending cuts, an inexperienced Chancellor and an unknown Cabinet, and the simmering threat of Europe against the backdrop of a now highly euro-sceptic party.

Rawnsley also asks about the Tories values, such as letting the charity sector take over from the state. His old lecturer at Oxford makes the very good point that people realised this wouldn’t work in the late 19th century – that’s why they brought the state in.

It makes me thankful I’m on this side rather than theirs.  Their party has few members from ethnic minorities, the shadow cabinet are made up of out-of-touch Etonians, and there are more Tory MPs called Tim than there are female Tory MPs.

I’m very aware that the centre of political gravity in Scotland sits significantly to the left of that of the UK as a whole. This is reflected in sorts of governments we’ve had at Holyrood since the creation of the Scottish Parliament in 1999. Labour introduced free personal care for the elderly, we have a different system of university tuition fees to that in England, and the SNP are able to talk about abolishing the right to buy council houses. Now while I don’t necessarilly agree with everything they do in office (and I’m yet to make my mind up on the example I’ve just cited), I am comfortable that they reflect this more left-leaning sentiment in the Scottish body-politik.

That’s why I find the prospect of ‘devolution max’ increasingly appealing. The Scottish Parliament is clearly established now. People have faith in it’s ability to create laws and scrutinise the Scottish Government (although I concede there is a strong argument that it is sorely lacking in strong characters and canny political operators). I think the current devolution settlement was a good start, but is still quite messy. The proposals set out in the Calman Commission report strike me as a bit of a political fudge. I think the Scottish Government should have more responsibility for the economy and welfare, and should have the ability to borrow money. Scotland could then more fully embrace its more left-leaning tendencies.

The concept of devolution max was proposed in the SNP’s recent white paper on an independence referendum. However, as they advocate full independence, they deliberately chose not to flesh it out. I’m not sure to what extent what I’ve proposed above fits with devolution max, but I expect it’s not too far away.

I wasn’t a Labour member when we lost in Scotland in 2007 (although I joined later that year). I remember thinking that, although it was a shame the party had lost, it might force it to break free of the party at UK level and have the courage to adopt policies that sit at odds with the Labour government in Wesminster. Ultimately I’ve been disapointed by Labour in opposition in Scotland, and I think the reason is that they haven’t done this.

One of the most striking ways the party could reinvigorate itself would be to take a strong line on constitutional reform. I beleive that the party should go into the Scottish Parliament elections in 2011 with a manifesto commitment to holding a referendum on devolution max. I think this would really resonate with the Scottish public and would give us a really distinctive position. I believe the sentiment that brought us the Scotland Act and referendum in 1998 should be recaptured and advanced in 2011.

We could even, if we felt confident enough, include an option for all-out independence. If this were to be defeated it may well silence the nationalists’ arguments for years to come.

Devolution max would mean that Scottish MPs would have very few responsibilities – a small number of economic matters (I think this is potentially where the devolution max argument could come unstuck, and the only workable solution may be to opt for full devolution of economic responsibility to Scotland), foreign affairs, defence and international development. Many would argue that this would only exacerbate the difficulties arising from the West Lothian question. However although introducing a rule that Scottish MPs could only vote on matters directly affecting Scotland would be difficult – it would exacerbate the sense that there are two classes of MPs – I do not see it as impossible.

However, you could then have a situation whereby Labour could stay in power by virtue of its heavy contingent of Scottish MPs, despite the Tories winning a majority in England. The government could then only guarantee being able to pass legislation affecting the whole of the UK. As a result of Scotland’s devolution settlement, England would be lumberred with a greater likelihood of what would in effect be impotent minority government.

This is where my knowledge of constitutional options ends. Although again difficult, might it be a possibility that the right to form a government at UK level should be dictated by the result of the generel election in England? In other words, could the number of seats a party obtains in Scotland would be excluded for the purposes of deciding who won?

These problems would have obvious consequences for Labour at a UK level. The consequence of allowing Scottish Labour to shift to the left would be that British Labour would have to shift to the right. However, I maybe don’t see that as such a problem. My original argument was that, by reducing the size of political units, you make them more representative. Although this will be a lot harder in what would, in many ways, become an English Parliament representing 50 million people compared to a Scottish Parliament representing 5 million, I believe it would still enhance the sense that parliament represents the will of the people.

Wow. That took a lot longer than expected.

A cheeky related line is that I concur with the Scottish Liberal Democrat’s Alastair Carmichael’s call in Holyrood Magazine to abolish the Scotland Office. He describes the position of Secretary of State for Scotland as:

A tax-funded campaign manager for the Labour Party in Scotland.

I ‘m not sure I disagree.

http://www.holyrood.com/daily/2010/02/26/136-lib-dem-government-would-scrap-the-scotland-office-

The [recent] narrowing of the polls is encouraging for Labour, but perhaps the statistical shift has gone far enough. While losing a general election is never a CV-worthy achievement, it could be argued that for the polls to stay exactly where they are might best serve Labour’s long-term interests.

He goes on to say that if the Conservatives emerge with a small and vulnerable majority:

David Cameron will find himself helming a dissatisfied party in potentially unmanagable circumstances.

Amongst these, Macrory notes the need for unpopular cuts, Cameron’s preference for governing from the left of his party and the resultant discontent amongst the grassroots, the testing of the Tories’ environmental credentials, and the issue the party’s position on Europe.

He finishes by saying:

So perhaps the polls, as they stand, are just enough to award a Conservative government a toxic chalice – and leave Labour, with a new leader (assuming Gordon Brown would go willingly) who could look on as Cameron administers the economic medicine, well placed for a swift return to office.

Couldn’t agree more.

Another good article this week (and one I have found a link for) is by Lance Price. He sums up the challenges facing Labour at the coming election, and identifies the key strengths of our likely manifesto:

http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/a-last-minute-lazarus/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/07/helm-interview-gordon-brown-nhs

Brown:

What we are going to do in the next parliament is [introduce] a two-week guarantee that you will see a specialist. So if you go to your GP, you see a specialist within two weeks.

Why do we not hear more about this…

and so much of this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/feb/03/prime-ministers-questions-live

Cameron:

The reason he’s in favour of the alternative vote is that it’s election time. He must think the whole country’s stupid.

It stinks of political expediency. I wholeheartedly support the introduction of the alternative vote, but by introducing this as late in the day as he has,  he’s taking the electorate for idiots if he thinks they’ll buy that this is something he cares about as a matter of principle. Cameron is very good at seeing through Brown’s political games.

Parliamentary Terminology

Things could be made a lot more straightforward if we just changed a lot of the terminology:

• Divisions would become Votes
• Early Day Motions would become Members’ Petitions
• Adjournment debates would become Members’ Debates
• Private Members’ Bills would become Members’ Bills
• Members would refer to each other by their names rather than ‘the right honourable member for such and such’
• Members would address each other directly rather than through the speaker
• The practice of ‘question number one’ and ‘questions number two’ should be abolished
• Points of order would also become something else, but I’m not sure what

Government Terminology

The terminology of government should be changed as well:

• Secretaries of State should be referred to as Senior Ministers.
• Ministers should continue to be referred to as Ministers.
• Parliamentary Undersecretaries of State should be referred to as Junior Ministers.
• Parliamentary Private Secretaries should be referred to Ministerial Assistants.

Parliamentary Calendar and Business

Each parliamentary year should start after the end of the last summer recess and end at the start of the next summer recess. Parliament should sit during (something roughly approximating to) school terms:

• Six weeks from mid-September to late October, the one week recess
• Six weeks from early November to mid December, then two week recess
• Six weeks from early January to mid-February, then one week recess
• Six weeks from late February to early April, then two week recess
• Six weeks from mid-April to late May, then one week recess
• Six weeks from early June to mid-July, then nine week recess (last three weeks are conferences)

Parliament would thus sit for 36 weeks per year. If it sat for 4 days each it week it would sit for 144 days. In the 2008-09 parliament, the house sat for only 144 days.

The timings, order and format of parliament’s business should change:

• Parliament should sit from 1.30 till 6.30 on a Monday, and then from 9 till 12.30 and 1.30 till 6.30 on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. Parliament should never sit on Fridays.
• The day should be split as follows: 9-12.15 is debate of a bill, 1.15-4.30 is debate of a bill, 4.30-5.30 is statements to the house and urgent questions, and 5.30-6.30 is question time.
• The government would be entitled to all debates of bill sessions apart from the afternoon (1.15-4.30) slot on Thursday afternoons. This would alternate between opposition day debates and members’ bills.
• Question time will now fall at the end of each day and can be broadcast on TV live at dinner time.
• All questions for the Prime Minister should remain topical questions. Half of each question time for every other department should be topical questions.
• Urgent questions to be answered between 4.30 and 5.30pm should be submitted by 9am on the same day. Government Departments should always have at least one minister available to answer questions on any given day.

By regularising parliament’s timetable and taking control of proceedings away from the government, this will hopefully make parliament more accesible to the people it serves . It will hopefully also make Parliament more responsive. Therefore, if a constituent has an urgent problem, they can raise it with their MP, who can then ask an urgent question the next day.

Obscure parliamentary traditions should end:

• Prayers at the begining of each sitting
• Moving that ‘this house do now ajourn’
• Proroguation
• The ceremony surrounding the election of the speaker

The Queens Speech should stay, but it should just be renamed the Opening of Parliament. The Prime Minister should give the speech (that he always writes anyway), and the Queen should just say a few apolitical words afterwards.

Speaker, Sergeant at Arms, and Clerks of the House

• The Speaker should be refferred to as the Chairman/Chairwoman.
• No-one should not wear traditional robes or wigs.
• They should continue to be elected by MPs, but this should be done on the basis of the alternative vote, thus making the process shorter.
• They should serve a term of five years.
• The position of Sergeant at Arms should be abolished. The police should take full control for security in the House of Commons.
• The Clerks of the House should not sit in the house itself.

Legislation

We should also change the process by which we process bills and make laws:

• Procedural readings where nothing actually happens should be scrapped – no first reading or third reading, just second reading and report stage
• Readings and stages should be referred to as debates
• White Papers and Green Papers should become Draft Bills
• Control of the the business of the house should be taken away from government and the speaker and made more regulated
• The timetable for legislation passing through the house should be regulated i.e. bill published on Monday of week one, first debate on Monday of week two, report debate on Monday of week three
• The ammount of time given to debating a bill should be counted in the number of morning (9-12.15) and afternoon (1.15-4.30) sessions it is allocated.
• Ammendments should only recieve attention if they recieve a set number of signatures
• All ammendments etc discussed should be voted on. This would take a lot more time now, but the process of voting could be dramatically speeded up by doing it electronically, using computers in the backs of the benches to save time.

House of Lords and Committees

The House of Lords should be scrapped and replaced by a stronger committee system of MPs. We could thus retain the expertise function that the upper house provides.

• Committee appointments shouldn’t be made by the Government but by ballots of MPs
• Committees shouldn’t be created to scrutinise specific bills – the relevant select committee should do this work
• Select Committees should be referred to as Members’ Committees
• Committees should hold hearings for new member’s of the government as and when they are appointed

There should be a public petitions committee. This would hear submissions from any formal public petition that recieved more than a set amount of signatures. It would be able to grant a fixed ammount of debates in the house every year.

Elections

We should change the way we elect MPs:

• Elections should be held rigidly every four years
• They should be held on Saturdays, with votes counted on Sunday mornings
• Elections and the campaign should replace the last four weeks of the six week sitting of parliament from early June to mid-July. Parliament should reconvene as usual in September.
• We should use an alternative vote system

MPs, their salaries, and their staff

The number of MPs should be reduced to a round number such as 500. The amount of work that each MP would have to do would increase, but the scope of it wouldn’t, so this could probably be coped with by redistributing saved staffing allowances between the remaining MPs. MPs’ salaries should be increased and expenses decreased.

A new Parliamentary Priviledge bill should be introduced.  It should limit Parliamentary Priviledge to only protect MPs against getting sued for what they say in the House of Commons.

Public Access

The parliament website should take on the functions that BBC democracy live, theyworkforyou and publicwhip currently serve.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2010/01/gordon_browns_s.html

I would have hoped Brown would have learned his lesson after the last time he floated a ‘snap election’. I’m really fed up about all the briefing that’s recently gone on about a 25 March poll.

• For a start, we’re not ready as a party.
• Secondly, it’s a ridiculous time in the year to have an election – the clocks don’t go back until a week or two later – we would be canvassing in the dark.
• Thirdly, we’re likely to get positive economic date at the end of March – all the experts are suggesting Darling’s prediction that we would return to growth in the first quarter of next year will be correct. That would be a massive boost on the eve of a campaign.

It just looks really political and conniving. The point at which Brown floated the prospect of an election when he was first elected and chickened out after the polls didn’t look like he’d get the majority he wanted was when Brown’s premiership started to wrong.

About to get off a train, so will continue this blog in a bit…

I think, with Brown at the helm, it would be a disaster were Labour to win the general election, which now looks like it will be held in either March or May later this year. It would be like Major’s 5 years after he won in 1992. Although I think Brown has infinitely more convictions and ideas than Major, the result would be the same – a massive defeat sometime around 2015 that would keep us out of power for the next 15 to 20 years, as has happened to Tories after our victory in 1997.

2010 is not a good time to be in government. Rather, it’s a very good time to be in opposition. The spending cuts and tax rises necessary over the next 5-10 years to repay the money borrowed to bail out the banks will make whichever party is in power deeply unpopular. People won’t remember the work done to prepare the ground for such cuts – talk of ‘honesty’ in ‘the age of austerity’ – when their childrens’ school’s education budget is cut and the amount of income tax they pay rises.

Were we to win, it would only be a slim majority at best. The subsequent erosion in our popularity would lead to electoral meltdown in the future. Although it would be a massive personal blow for David Cameron to lose next year, the Tories would recover. Furthermore, they could continue to make the argument that we mismanaged the economy and people are suffering as a result – it sounds a little hollow now, but when the cuts really hit it will really hit home.

Were the Tories to win, they would be in a position where they had to make these same cuts. Although they could quite reasonably pin the blame on us for the situation they inherited, people’s memories are short – while that argument might have currency for a year or two, it will eventually sound like they’re shirking responsibility.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m not advocating giving up the ghost entirely. It’s very important that we are able to defend our (very worthy) record in government during the ensuing years of Tory government. We can only do this by losing narrowly.

If we get an absolute thumping, we’d sound out of touch to refer to the successes of the past 13 years. We’d have to undergo a total rethink in values, ideology, policies, presentation and personnel. However, if the Tories end up with a majority of 20 or 30, we can reasonably make the case that after three terms, any party will lose popularity and struggle electorally, but there’s still a lot that we’ve done to be proud of. Gordon Brown would feel compelled to resign. We could elect a new, younger and more dynamic leader. We could retain the majority of the current (talented and experienced) cabinet members, bring through some new faces, score easy points while the Tories struggle with selling cuts to the country, and come back to consolidate our achievements in or around 2015. One term isn’t long enough for the Tories to wreck everything we’ve done.

In my view, the best possible scenario is a hung parliament with the Tories as the largest party. They would either form a minority government and be unable to do much of anything, or form a coalition with the Lib Dems, whereby they’de be prevented from doing all the really nasty things they want to, and the Lib Dem-Labour switchers would be so repulsed by their party’s decision to ‘sell out’, they come back to us in their droves.

A bit rambling. A bit incoherent. But I think that just about sums up my position. We need to fight good hard local campaigns, save as many seats as possible, lose narrowly, elect a new leader, defend the record, score points on a weak Tory government, and get back in to consolidate all the good things we’ve done since 1997.