Agree. Which raises the question for me: who in the Opposition thought Powell was sufficiently well prepared for this IfG outing? If Sue Gray is overseeing the Opposition’s readiness for Government, she needs to get a better grip.
I get Labour being vague when it comes to areas of policy that the Tories can steal and water down or weaponise for electoral gain. But legislative reform and/or the Commons working in a manner that it’s supposed to is barely going to be a soundbite in an election. So this is an area in which Labour could go quite detailed if it had a mind to. But here’s the problem: it doesn’t want to.
Labour, for all its relatively progressive rumblings in certain key areas, has long been saddled with leadership that once it gets its hands on power is rather happy about not being tied down nor having to give away an advantage. Hence here not wanting to give away control to MPs. Or elsewhere dismissing outright the notion of a representative parliament, which, again, Labour would see as giving away control.
So I fear we will just have another repeat of what’s happened previously. Labour will get in and do some good things. It will push back at anything that may make for more stability in future, because, hey, Labour are the good guys. And then Labour will lose a general election to a Tory party gaining a majority on high 30s, scream and shout at Green and Lib Dems for not backing Labour (when Labour had every opportunity – again to enact wholesale representative electoral reform), and then act all surprised when the Tories subvert and pervert the rules in place for their own benefit. And then we really will be back to square one. Albeit a square one built out of shit.
A problem with Labour not improving legislative process and scrutiny when they get the chance is that even if they are decent, perhaps the next lot won't be. Any sensible reforming government, I would hope, would take steps to protect the country from another blustering, lying buffoon as PM in future. I very much enjoyed your book, Ian.
I came to the same broad conclusion: overwhelmingly it was "we'll do better because we're more virtuous and professional". Even if I believed that, it's not much of a pledge. Almost no specific proposals or (importantly) metrics by which a Labour government could be judged in terms of the legislative and scrutiny process.
I think there's a good case for the French model of removing government from Parliament. Have a list system (multi-member constituencies, open lists, more proportional) and if you become a minister, the next best-placed person from your party takes your place. MPs should be able to control the agenda - if the government is acting democratically, then its business will get done by commanding majority support. And give us a hemicycle rather than this confrontational BS.
They won't reform it formally because they know they can abuse the system too, like the other lot. They could start with Proportional Representation but again they won't cos they'll need to share power across the board rather than hoarding it for themselves. So ultimately my vote won't count at all and the votes of racist halfwits in the Red Wall will. Great British democracy.
Great explanation, thanks Ian, however - all well and good expecting (hoping?) for Labour to make the necessary changes but what hope have we that HM Opposition will scrutinise and hold them to account? Zero of course, so it’ll be up to you old chap. Good luck…
Thank you Ian. In the context of a forthcoming GE where, on some calculations, the incoming Government is slated to take 60% of the HoC this is desperately worrying.
In all seriousness, can you just send her a signed copy of your book saying: "Hope you enjoy this. Highly recommend doing the things in the epilogue. Much love, Ian"
We each have a responsibility to help the incoming players understand what they are missing; commenting, complaining and worrying is understandable but only indirectly constructive. I hope you sent a private letter to fill in the apparent gaps of knowledge in some more detail.
I really don’t know what’s going to happen, I’m afraid to even hope. I’m very angry with Tory politicians. It feels like they’re playing a game of chess or something which they kind of enjoy with our lives as they are cushioned from the consequences. I’ll vote for whichever party has most chance of improving the situation in this country (which is bad) but it’s FPTP. I think we deserve PR after all this. If any party is able to deliver that but doesn’t want to they’re not really the good guys. They’re just another politician taking the easier route to winning. I don’t think it’s naive to want a good guy either. You know someone who is not just a clever clogs politician but who cares about the truth, who is not afraid to say so, who tells Murdoch to go fuck himself. Who dares to unite the country by taking the chance that we are so damn thirsty for the truth and the right thing now that we would actually get behind them.
I very much enjoyed “The Gold” too, much of it happened in my parents’ neighbourhood. However I think Jack Lowden, a really promising young actor, was seriously miscast as Kenneth Noyes. You need someone with a sense of danger about them, an unstated menace, like for example Tom Hardy, for that role
Sounds like she needs to read your book.
Agree. Which raises the question for me: who in the Opposition thought Powell was sufficiently well prepared for this IfG outing? If Sue Gray is overseeing the Opposition’s readiness for Government, she needs to get a better grip.
I get Labour being vague when it comes to areas of policy that the Tories can steal and water down or weaponise for electoral gain. But legislative reform and/or the Commons working in a manner that it’s supposed to is barely going to be a soundbite in an election. So this is an area in which Labour could go quite detailed if it had a mind to. But here’s the problem: it doesn’t want to.
Labour, for all its relatively progressive rumblings in certain key areas, has long been saddled with leadership that once it gets its hands on power is rather happy about not being tied down nor having to give away an advantage. Hence here not wanting to give away control to MPs. Or elsewhere dismissing outright the notion of a representative parliament, which, again, Labour would see as giving away control.
So I fear we will just have another repeat of what’s happened previously. Labour will get in and do some good things. It will push back at anything that may make for more stability in future, because, hey, Labour are the good guys. And then Labour will lose a general election to a Tory party gaining a majority on high 30s, scream and shout at Green and Lib Dems for not backing Labour (when Labour had every opportunity – again to enact wholesale representative electoral reform), and then act all surprised when the Tories subvert and pervert the rules in place for their own benefit. And then we really will be back to square one. Albeit a square one built out of shit.
A problem with Labour not improving legislative process and scrutiny when they get the chance is that even if they are decent, perhaps the next lot won't be. Any sensible reforming government, I would hope, would take steps to protect the country from another blustering, lying buffoon as PM in future. I very much enjoyed your book, Ian.
I came to the same broad conclusion: overwhelmingly it was "we'll do better because we're more virtuous and professional". Even if I believed that, it's not much of a pledge. Almost no specific proposals or (importantly) metrics by which a Labour government could be judged in terms of the legislative and scrutiny process.
https://theideaslab.substack.com/p/labours-plans-for-law-making-and
I think there's a good case for the French model of removing government from Parliament. Have a list system (multi-member constituencies, open lists, more proportional) and if you become a minister, the next best-placed person from your party takes your place. MPs should be able to control the agenda - if the government is acting democratically, then its business will get done by commanding majority support. And give us a hemicycle rather than this confrontational BS.
They won't reform it formally because they know they can abuse the system too, like the other lot. They could start with Proportional Representation but again they won't cos they'll need to share power across the board rather than hoarding it for themselves. So ultimately my vote won't count at all and the votes of racist halfwits in the Red Wall will. Great British democracy.
Great explanation, thanks Ian, however - all well and good expecting (hoping?) for Labour to make the necessary changes but what hope have we that HM Opposition will scrutinise and hold them to account? Zero of course, so it’ll be up to you old chap. Good luck…
Thank you Ian. In the context of a forthcoming GE where, on some calculations, the incoming Government is slated to take 60% of the HoC this is desperately worrying.
I have low expectations, but *anything* will be better that our current state!
AI reading of this post in Ian's voice:
https://askwhocastsai.substack.com/p/we-finally-get-a-glimpse-of-labours
In all seriousness, can you just send her a signed copy of your book saying: "Hope you enjoy this. Highly recommend doing the things in the epilogue. Much love, Ian"
We each have a responsibility to help the incoming players understand what they are missing; commenting, complaining and worrying is understandable but only indirectly constructive. I hope you sent a private letter to fill in the apparent gaps of knowledge in some more detail.
I really don’t know what’s going to happen, I’m afraid to even hope. I’m very angry with Tory politicians. It feels like they’re playing a game of chess or something which they kind of enjoy with our lives as they are cushioned from the consequences. I’ll vote for whichever party has most chance of improving the situation in this country (which is bad) but it’s FPTP. I think we deserve PR after all this. If any party is able to deliver that but doesn’t want to they’re not really the good guys. They’re just another politician taking the easier route to winning. I don’t think it’s naive to want a good guy either. You know someone who is not just a clever clogs politician but who cares about the truth, who is not afraid to say so, who tells Murdoch to go fuck himself. Who dares to unite the country by taking the chance that we are so damn thirsty for the truth and the right thing now that we would actually get behind them.
I very much enjoyed “The Gold” too, much of it happened in my parents’ neighbourhood. However I think Jack Lowden, a really promising young actor, was seriously miscast as Kenneth Noyes. You need someone with a sense of danger about them, an unstated menace, like for example Tom Hardy, for that role