The geographical realities of Europe

As the European elections are creeping ever closer, the debate about 'in or out' of Europe gathers momentum. The hapless leader of the LibDems, Nick Clegg, showed some guts to publicly slug it out with the UKIP leader, Nigel Farage. The result was pre-ordained, to say the least.

It is not just that Farage is a formidable debater, and Nick Clegg failed to update his schtick from the last time he appeared in a leaders debate ('Trust me, I am an honest politician'). More importantly, Europe is pretty low on the list of issues that concerns voters. Curiously, that works in favour of Farage, the eternal anti-European. Exactly because Europe is of little relevance to the day to day lives of ordinary people, it arouses heated debates. Nothing is more fun than to discuss something that allows people to let emotions rip without making it a substantial issue that splits families. Gay marriage is in the same category, something that will affect only a few thousand people in the UK, but evokes hot debates up and down the country. In the small matter of Europe, it may not help that its parliament is little more than a talking shop (what size for bananas?) and its bureaucrats are filling their pockets with dodgy expenses.

But what clinched it for Farage is ultimately something else. It is the lack of experiencing benefits (or anything else for that matter) through being in Europe. If you live in a border town in Belgium you will drive across a (non-existing) border and go shopping in French or German super markets. If you watch the news in Germany, you will be swamped with stories about your French or Polish neighbours. In short, on the continent, you live Europe, whilst in Britain, Europe is something far away. The prevailing sentiment that India or the US are culturally closer to Britain does not help.

Poor Clegg will have to face geographical reality, which is that Britain is an island, and so the pro-Europeans will always be disadvantaged right from the start. On top of that, and despite all the heat it generates in the media, Europe does not mean much to most ordinary people in this country, for better or worse.

The benefits of coalition government

As a German I have always been quite comfortable with coalition government, unlike most people in this country. Indignation about broken electoral promises never resonated with me, given that the main  benefit of coalition government seems to be a need for compromise that often weeds out the nuttier promises made in the heat of the electoral battle.

As the present coalition government edges to its final days in the UK, the 'play fights', as Andrew Rawnsley from The Observer calls them, increase. They are in essence the separation rituals of two partners that need to differentiate themselves from each other whilst at the same time trying to celebrate what they achieved.

Whatever its accomplishments, there is one advantage of coalition government that is rarely discussed. It's the fact that both partners are in a learning experience, coming into direct contact with other opinions and views on how to run the economy (and the country) without having the privilege to reject other perspectives out of hand. In other words, coalition government has a disciplining effect on all partners, forcing them to listen and to learn.

One area which demonstrates this increased capacity to learn under the conditions of a coalition government is taxation. In 2010, the Conservatives were steadfast against increasing the personal tax allowance whilst Lib Dems made it one of their most prominent electoral pledges. Two years into the coalition government and Chancellor George Osborne publicly commented that he wished this had been a Tory pledge all along. The Tory support for the increase of the personal tax allowance became so strong that Lib Dems felt miffed about it and kept pointing out to anybody who wanted to hear it that this was originally their idea.

There may be some disadvantages about lifting more than 5 million people out of tax altogether, mainly relating to the fact that modern societies are based on the contributory principle, for which taxation is the main conduit. But overall, there is now only one party that does not support a further increase in the personal tax allowance, the Labour Party. How Labour politicians square this with their avowed ambition to do good for the lowest paid is beyond me, but it seems that the two coalition partners have got it. Sometimes it may be a good thing if you are forced to share power.

The unsavoury coalition to gag the press

The Prime Minister has now withdrawn from the cross-party negotiations on new regulations for the press. His argument is simple: the other parties want to muzzle the press and although there certainly have been infringements of the rights of innocent people over the last decade, the press has now accepted that a strong regulatory system needs to be put in place. Labour and the LibDem want a licensing system where journalists have to apply for to a statutory body to be able to work in a media outlet. The Prime Minister has rejected this.

There are two main reasons why I believe Cameron is right on this issue. First, with all due respect to victims of press intrusion, I don't think the victims of injustices have an overriding privilege to write legislation. The Hacked Off campaign director Brian Cathcart has already said that he does not 'want to know anything about' the freedom of the press. That does not bode well for free and responsible media.

The second reason Cameron may have called an end to the cross party charade is that the people ganging up on the press have less than honorable motifs. The motley crew of those who want to gag the press consists mainly of politicians who have misbehaved in public and faced the fallout of their misdemeanours in the press. They now think it is pay back time. Amongst others, there is Labour MP Chris Bryant who placed pictures of himself in a semi-naked state on the internet which were then published (I spare you the visual evidence). No wonder he would like to gag the press. On Wednesday, he (decently dressed this time) argued that the press should be regulated by the government through statutory law. That would put Britain on a par with Russia and China.

There is no doubt that the press needs a strong regulatory framework to operate in. What we don't need is to end 300 years of media freedom. The best thing Labour can do to reform press behaviour in this country is to come off the fence and support the libel reform law that they are trying to scupper in the upper house.

Cameron calling the bluff of the other parties on Europe

Cameron is enjoying some good headlines in the newspapers after years of more or less open hostility from the press. Yet, the real issue he sparked off with his Europe speech is how the other parties will position themselves to the referendum call.

Labour leader Miliband has chickened out already. Nothing else to be expected from a largely timid leader of the opposition who is party leader only at the behest of the trade unions.

Yet, Cameron has also called the bluff of the Liberal Democrats and they are fuming. The former leader of the LibDems Charles Kennedy, struggled to keep his composure during an interview with Andrew Neill at the Daily Politics show yesterday when asked whether he would support a referendum on Europe. The background to this question: Kennedy vociferously demanded an in/out referendum for the last 20 years. Alas, he could only do so since the LibDems were never in government so they had no chance to get their wish.

Now, things are different. If Kennedy had the mettle he always pretended to have, he should join Cameron in his call for a referendum on Europe. It seems the chickens are coming home to roost.

The transformation of the LibDems

As the end of 2012 is approaching fast, it may also be a good time to look ahead to the next general election which is only 2 years away.

The most interesting issue since the start of the coalition government has certainly been the steady decline of the LibDems. In a way, this was predictable. Having been in opposition for more than 80s years, the party had become used to play all the cards at the same time. Life in opposition was not just comfortable, it also shielded them from difficult truths and some of the LibDems were masters in avoiding difficult decisions.

The peculiar political constellation in the UK with two dominant parties and practically no fourth political party worthy of the name, afforded the LibDems a dual role, straddling parts of the political spectrum that had little in common. On one side, LibDems served as the repository of disenchanted Labour voters with strong left leaning tendencies. On the other hand, the party also accommodated more libertarian views and an economic liberalism usually only found amongst (liberal) Conservatives.

This dual role was never going to be sustainable once the LibDems entered government and it was the (more centrist) convictions of Clegg and the LibDem leadership which carried the day. The left leaning wing of the party was horrified by the decision to enter a coalition government with the Conservatives and most of those voters (and some activists) moved back into the Labour fold. But what does that mean for the future?

Given that the LibDems share some of the responsibility for the welfare reforms and the austerity budgets in the last two years, it is hard to see how Clegg and his wing of the party can perform another u-turn and enter a coalition with Labour in 2015. In a sense then, the transformation of the LibDems into a centre party with strong preferences for economic liberalism is complete. The reflects a fundamental shift in the leadership of the party as well. Market-orientated economic liberalism is probably were Clegg's heart is.

It leaves the political spectrum in a fascinating bind. Although there is the theoretical possibility of a Lib-Lab coalition, chances are this is not going to happen. If neither of the two large parties achieve a majority in 2015, the only option is a minority government of Labour or Tories (whoever has the largest number of seats in the House of Commons) or another version of the Con-Lib government.

Currently the decline of the LibDems leaves Labour in the fortunate position to enjoy a boost in the opinion polls. Yet their glee at the demise of the LibDems is premature. Their own increased popularity is  only because those LibDem voters who were quite close to Labour have now migrated back to it. To continue to attract them, Labour however needs to keep articulating a left-leaning agenda which in turn will repel those voters in the centre of the spectrum without whom Labour cannot win the next election.

Of course, politics is never just a strategic game, but rather a question of tactics. Much of what shapes the political debate today, is probably forgotten when voters will finally make their way to the polling booths in 2015. Yet the political constellation poses a challenge not just to LibDems but to Labour as well.

Not yet ready for reform - the Lords will keep sitting

The House of Lords has been awaiting reform for more than 100 years, and the government announced today that it would have to wait a few more years. The legislation intended to transform the second chamber (which is actually the upper house), has failed to garner the support of a sufficient number of Conservative MPs and so had no chance of being progressed speedily through parliament. The government has decided to count its losses and wait for a better time.

No need to mothball the wigs yet - The House of Lords wont be reformed as yet

Although this government is not the first that lost its resolve to reform the upper house, the defeat will cause ripples through the government coalition. The junior partners in the coalition had invested a lot of political capital into the legislation and some of their MPs are now looking for opportunities to scupper some of the pet projects of their Conservative fellows. Why the Lib Dems were so determined to see this legislation through is however less clear.

It was badly designed and poorly timed. The legislation would have created an elected chamber of deputies (80%) and a small number of senators who gained entry to the house by appointment (20%). The overall number of Lords (or presumably senators in any future reformed house) would have been cut to 450, a large and welcome reduction. Yet, the electoral part of the new house had serious flaws. It was not clear which boundaries were to be used, whether members of the upper house would represent the same constituencies as their colleagues in the lower house, and how to prevent the three main parties from dominating the nomination process.

The biggest flaw however was that this legislation was ill-timed insofar as it anticipated reforming the chamber before Scotland was to make a decision about whether it would remain in the UK. If Scotland were to leave the Union, the upper chamber would have to be reformed along the lines of a stronger regional representation of Wales and Northern Ireland, the two minor partners in the Union. If Scotland stays in the Union, a more federal arrangement would equally need to be found to placate the desire of Scottish voters to be properly represented in Westminster, as well as those in England who think that English voters got shortchanged by the current devolution arrangements.

In essence then, any reform of the upper house would need to take into account the centrifugal tendencies that were set into motion by devolution. A simple exchange of unelected peers with elected ones would have failed to address any of the major constitutional issues which Libdems are often so fond to discuss. There can also be little joy on the LibDem benches about some of its own peers in the House of Lords that openly advocated against the proposal. As with so many things, the House of Lords may look antiquated and out of touch from the outside, but once you are on the inside and make a living with it, you make your peace with its less agreeable features.

On balance however there is no doubt that the House urgently needs reform. While the Labour leadership may rejoice at the defeat of the government and the brewing trouble between the coalition partners, it has nothing to celebrate. The reform of the upper house is long overdue and to have scuppered a clear time table for reform does not give them any brownie points with potential voters.

Delay the Lords Reform!

As the coalition government is stumbling from one mistake to another, it is hard to dispel the impression that most of its wounds are self-inflicted. To add to the list of problems, the government has opened the can of worms again that is the reform of the House of Lords. 

As many observers of constitutional affairs have noted only half-jokingly, House of Lords reform has been imminent since 1911. In that year, parliament approved the Parliament Act which established the supremacy of the House of Commons. Ever since, politicians and the British public have wondered what the role and purpose of the Lords could be in the legislative process. 

Much ink has been spilled on possible reforms for the House of Lords and many a commission’s report has come and gone. But now, the government is determined this long protracted issue should enter its final phase. In fact, it is so determined to solve the House of Lord issue, ministers will move other legislation out of the way in the House of Commons schedule to make place for reform legislation. Why the haste? 

One reason may be the desire of the Liberal Democrats to secure their legacy before the next general election. Putting in place some of the changes they promised in their election manifesto in 2010 may provide a critical stepping stone for their electoral survival. However the timing of this round of reforms of the House of Lords appears deeply flawed. While few would argue that making the Lords an elected parliamentary body would increase their legitimacy, it is the timing that is ill conceived. 

Scotland’s First Minister has announced a referendum on Scottish independence for 2014. Whether or not Scotland may secede from the Union in 2014, Britain will need a fundamental transformation of its constitutional structure as devolution for the three smaller home nations gathers pace. The obvious means for re-jigging the British constitution would be a federal upper chamber that could ensure regional and national representation and balances the power of central government.

Any precipitate House of Lords reforms however forecloses this option. Once the upper chamber is a fully elected body with the main political parties dominating its composition, any federal solution become unfeasible. Since not much has changed in the last 100 years, chances are we would have to wait another century for a federalisation of the upper chamber. The forces set in motion by devolution may not wait that long.