CHASING CRICK BACK TO MONDAY

*
Back to Monday...

Monday's Newsnight began by discussing David Cameron's attack on Gordon Brown over Brown's lamentable record on the issue of parliamentary expenses. It featured the first of the week's Tory-focused reports from our old friend Michael Crick. "'We can't go on like this' David Cameron's famous poster declared at the start of last month and indeed the Tories didn't go on as buoyantly as they did last year. January was a poor month for Mr Cameron's party, especially on the economy (was it that good for Labour either, with that worrying 0.1% growth figure which so deflated their much-built-up-to crowing campaign?) , so today he moved to what seemed much firmer ground after recent events with a very personal attack on Gordon Brown (as if Brown and his cronies haven't been continually making very personal attacks on 'superficial salesman' Cameron for years) for his handling of MPs' expenses and parliamentary reform."
*
Crick then noted than Speaker Bercow had warned MPs not to discuss the cases of the three Labour MPs being prosecuted for fraud. A I'm no fan of BBC reporter Norman Smith but even he put this in context on that evening's PM: "Well initially a lot of us thought he was rapping David Cameron over the knuckles because Mr Cameron has made a lot of the running today with very personal and inflamed language..." (and I bet anti-Tory Smith was all over News 24 saying as much for some hours afterwards!), but Smith went on to report that the Speaker's office had subsequently made it plain that it was potentially prejudicial comments from Alan Johnson not David Cameron that provoked Bercow's intervention. The ever-biased Crick did not provide any such context, even though he is a senior political editor at the BBC and must surely have known it. It wouldn't do to embarrass Alan Johnson though. Much better to leave Bercow's statement hanging, context-free, in the air for Newsnight viewers to draw the false conclusion that Cameron was getting his knuckles rapped by the Squeaker. That's Crick's 'honest' reporting all over!
*
At least Crick allowed a Conservative, former MP Michael Brown of The Independent, to say some supportive things about the hated Cameron, though Mr Brown also voiced some strong criticisms too - or he wouldn't have been on!! -, though he also featured an attack from Nick Clegg (who attacked Lord Ashcroft, which would have pleased Crick). Crick also very briefly mentioned that the Labour Party had dropped the lawyer who is representing the three fraud-accused Labour MPs.
*
The next exhibit in this post's case against Michael Crick is this characteristic sentence: "Tomorrow MPs vote on the government's plans for a referendum to change our voting system to the Alternative Vote, which some people say would be fairer." Who says that exactly? Who are these 'some people'? Labour Party strategists? That is a biased way of putting it, glossing it in a favourable way for the government. Crick could just have easilly have said, "Tomorrow MPs vote on the government's plans for a referendum to change our voting system to the Alternative Vote, which some people say would favour the Labour Party electorally and could help Labour cling to power with Lib Dem support in the event of a hung parliament."
*
Professor Robert Hazell of UCL was the academic of the day. This left-leaning prof (see http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/staff/hazell.htm and http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2007/06/gordonsgo/) criticized the Conservatives on the basis of newspaper reports that they were 'wobbling' over the Wright reforms. His contribution amounted to nothing more than that.

It wouldn't be a Crick report without at least some attempt to spotlight Tory 'splits'. Here's today's example: "Activists grumble Cameron has already centralised his party in dozens of ways. Candidates complain party HQ now insists on vetting and redrafting everything they write".(what everything??).
*
Crick needs to go now.
*

DISPROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

*
The batteries are still re-charging but...
*
**
Interesting times these (hopefully not in the sense of the famous Chinese curse).

What do you make of the 55% bar set for MPs to vote for dissolution? The BBC (who I've returned to today, just for today) is clearly obsessing about the issue.
*
The BBC's Clare Spencer presents a sequence of 'expert' views: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/seealso/2010/05/daily_view_parliament_dissolut.html
*
Strangely, the opponents featured in Clare's article come from the Right and the Left, while the supporters are solely drawn from the Centre and the Left. Where is the support from the Right? There is some, because I've read and heard it elsewhere.
*
This clearly reflects a fascinating sense of confusion reigning across the political spectrum.
*
This morning's Today also showed this in the contrasted and surprising responses of all its interviewees on the issue (Peter Hennessy, Robert Hazell, John Gummer - the main surprise being that Prof Hazell and Mr Gummer agreed, seemingly to the chagrin of Evan Davis).
*
This morning's Today also showed that there is at least one group of people in the country who aren't in the least confused on the issue - the BBC. They have simply come out in opposition to the idea.
*
Clare's sequence grossly favours one side of the argument - and it isn't the new government's side. Whichever side you are on here (if any), you will surely agree that her presentation is deeply biased. I could speculate as to why she (and her BBC colleagues) might want to show that 'expert' opinion largely believes that the Con-Lib coalition is in the wrong...but I won't!
*
The article's structure is a classic 'bias sandwich'- a sandwich with sceptics on top, supporters in the middle, and then - for the final word - another sceptic. (Actually, six are outright opponents. Only Douglas Hurd is really a sceptic).
*
Also, the sceptics outweigh the -philes by some margin. We get seven opponents of the government's position to just three supporters. Moreover, every single one of the first six views presented is that of opponent. Is that fair?
*
Simple colour co-ordination will make plain the extent of the imbalance (blue for sceptics, brown for supporters). Above and beyond my previous two points you'll see the contrast in word-count between the two sides is vast.
*
Moreover (and finally), just look who comes first!! A Labour MP!!!!
*

Daily View: Parliament dissolution rules change
Clare Spencer 11:02 UK time, Friday, 14 May 2010

Commentators discuss the coalition government's move to introduce a new mechanism for the dissolution of Parliament. The plans would require 55% of MPs to vote for dissolution, this is higher than the simple majority required for a vote of no confidence.

Labour MP Paul Flynn says the Liberal Democrats should be ashamed:

"Today a tiny sharp thought pierced the sensitive brains of conscientious LibDems. They have signed up to the illiberal power-hugging cheat of 55% majority for a confidence vote. There is no argument for this except party advantage to the Tories. It's a shameless, blatant denial of democracy.

"When they sober up, the LibDems morphing into Con'Dems will remember their past indignation at alleged Labour sins on democracy and freedoms during the past thirteen years. The Con-Dems have proved their mettle.

"They have slashed a basic tenet of democracy within thirteen hours."

In the Law blog Head of Legal Carl Gardner argues against the move:

"This proposed legislation, though, seems to aim at preventing an election even if 54% of MPs want one. That is wrong in principle, it's undemocratic, and it must be opposed.

"What it would mean is that if the coalition broke down, the Con-LibDem administration would end too. Of course. But there wouldn't and couldn't be an election. Instead, a minority Conservative government would be able to carry on - its 306 seats giving it a blocking minority of 47% - and as long as it kept discipline it could rule without the confidence of Parliament. Bear in mind that this could happen the moment this new legislation comes into force, which is presumably intended to be soon, so that government could go on, effectively behind Parliamentary barricades, for months or for several years. Even for this to be theoretically possible is, I'm afraid, outrageous and unconscionable. Whatever government we have, it must be accountable to Parliament."

Iain Martin says in the Wall Street Journal that he thinks the 55% rule is a "very dangerous constitutional innovation":

"It has slightly sinister sounding connotations, as though a ratchet effect might operate. If it is being suggested that 55% of votes is needed to express no confidence in a government this year (all in the interests of strong government, you understand) then why not 60% or higher at some point in the future?

"It is rather stretching things to try and present this piece of proposed gerrymandering as 'Political Reform.' It is actually designed to ensure that even a walk -out of the whole Lib Dem parliamentary group couldn't actually bring down this government. This would weaken Parliament and strengthen the hand of the executive considerably - when it is only weeks since both parties were talking of doing the opposite."

Lee Rotherham at Conservative Home says the change would betray "the most basic and fundamental principles of how a democracy works":

"A majority of MPs could vote down a government, and yet it could keep on trundling in power.

"I am not sure where this idea came from; it has rather a tinge from the days of the sacked European Commission.

"Having pondered the revolutionary change last night and pored over Erskine May this morning, the reality seems even more striking. I could find in its many pages no actual definition of what constitutes a majority in Parliament. The centuries-old presumption is that it is a majority of one. Ink is expended explaining Speaker Addington's decision of 1796, and three decisions by Speaker Denison between 1860 and 1870, where votes were tied and the Speaker's vote (and his deputy's) counted. But beyond that, the definition of a majority is so obvious it requires no comment or definition.

"That is the measure of the revolution at hand."

A senior lecturer in the school of law at Aberdeen University, Scott Styles is reported in the Times as pointing out a few problems with the plans:

"Firstly, Cameron is renouncing his right as PM to dissolve Parliament at a time of his choosing. Politically this seems unwise but legally it is unproblematic: in effect, the government is surrendering a right.

"The second and much more fundamental problem is the raising of the bar of a no-confidence vote in the government to 55% rather than simple majority of those MPs present and voting. This is a major and fundamental alteration in our constitution and what is being changed is not a right of the PM but a power of the Commons."

The constitutional and government expert from Queen Mary University Peter Hennessy says on the BBC Today Programme that the idea is "iffy":

"You can't actually create hurdles that make it easier for you to last in power. It just looks all wrong."
**************************************
Supporting the 55% rule, Alan Travis says in the Guardian that it shouldn't scare voters:

"But it is worth asking if the controversial 55% rule set out in the Lib-Con coalition agreement needed to force an early general election really is a conspiracy against the opposition parties or a legitimate stabiliser for an infant coalition taking its first steps.

"The first thing to clear up is that there does not appear to be any change in the rules surrounding a vote of no confidence. A government could still fall on a simple majority of MPs. The text of the coalition agreement appears clear. It only refers to providing a vote for the dissolution of parliament, that is, the calling of a general election."

Will Straw asks in Left Foot Forward whether 55% too low:

"All this begs the question of whether 55 per cent is too low a threshold for a dissolution resolution. If the point of a fixed term parliament is that the governing party cannot dissolve parliament to suit itself, perhaps the threshold should be two-thirds as in both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly."

Iain Roberts argues in Lib Dem Voice that the reality is different to the critics' description:

"So this proposal makes no difference to motions of no confidence and gives MPs power they've never had before to dissolve parliament, moving power from the Executive to the Legislature. Whilst the percentage might be a little low, the basic principle is both sound and democratic."
**************************************
Former foreign secretary Douglas Hurd discusses the proposal with presenter Andrew Neil on the BBC's Straight Talk:

Andrew Neil: You say you hope the coalition lasts for five years. How long do you think it will last?
Douglas Hurd: Well, I'm not 100% in favour of fixed Parliaments, because I think you can have circs, we may get into circs where the existing Parliament is just not working.
AN: You just need a change?
DH: Well, you need a change, and somebody has to produce that change. Now, there's a proposal now that it would be 55%, something of that kind, a substantial majority of the House of Commons has to vote for change. Well, maybe that's adequate, I'm not quite sure.
AN: But doesn't that leave you a little bit uneasy, this requirement that you can only bring a five-year Parliament to an end if you get a 55% majority in a vote of no confidence?
DH: Yes, it makes me slightly uneasy. I'm prepared to live with it because there is that 55% rule, I'm prepared to live with it, but, you know, I'm a Tory really, and Tories believe in a strong prime minister and a strong prime minister is somebody who can actually say at the end of an evening, of a bloody evening, 'well, that's the way you want it, right, I'm off to the Palace.'
AN: It continues, this changing of our constitution with not too much debate or forethought, Mr Blair did a lot of that - remember the argument over the Lord Chancellor? - and now we're saying, here was something that everybody understands, that when a government loses a motion of no confidence in the Commons, it is finished; either there's an election or it has to, the Queen invites someone else to form a government and here is something that both of us were brought up with, suddenly gets changed in a back-room deal.
DH: It suddenly gets changed, but of course it won't be a back-room deal; it will be thoroughly debated and mulled over, not least in the House to which I belong. The House of Lords has become a real expert in interpreting the constitution and many governments haven't liked that.
AN: And may not get through?
DH: May get changed. I mean, there will be a debate, there will be a discussion, there ought to be a discussion exactly as you say.

WESTSPINSTER HOUR

*
We last met left-leaning academic Professor Robert Hazell of University Collegee London in last Monday's anti-Tory report from Michael Crick (see http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/search?q=Hazell). He was back on the BBC for last night's Westminster Hour. His topic? The Conservative Party's constitutional agenda. He foresaw many problems facing the Tories over devolution, their plans to enshine European referenda in law and so on, outlining them all to a receptive Carolyn Quinn.
*
More talk of Tories, no actual Tories.
*
The politics panel this week also talked about the Tories, but contained no actual Tories - it consisted of Labour's Paul Flynn and Lib Dem Evan Harris.
*
The programme, as noted before, is now staggering the parties so as to allow the smaller parties a chance. So next week should, if the programme is being fair, sent an invite to the Conservatives (who are now owed a week - oh yes, I'm keeping score!!) and I guess, going off previous guests from the Greens, UKIP and the cross-benches, to someone from the SNP, BNP or Plaid Cymru. We'll see.*
*

TOMORROW IS JUST ANOTHER TODAY

*
The main 'controversy' of the day - the 55% threshold for any precipitous dissolution of parliament - was one of yesterday's main stories on Today. (I posted this first thing on Saturday morning!!)
*
John Humphrys kicked off the 6.10 paper review with some Tory-bashing from The Daily Mirror (9.37-10.12) followed by some more Coalition-bashing from The Independent (10.12-10.51). Evan Davis was next, discussing the 'debate' on the Left about how to respond to the coalition - starting with some sour-grapes Tory-bashing from Johann Hari of The Independent (10.59-11.31), followed by Martin Kettle of The Guardian (11.31-12.08) hoping for salvation from the 'reactionaries' courtesy of the Lib Dems. Finally, John Humphrys turned to The Sun's interview with David Cameron. (12.08-12.40). So the anti-government Left got 82% of the action, the pro-government Right just 18%.
*
Next John Humphrys turned to BBC political correspondent Peter Hunt. His first "question to Mr Hunt? "It is hitting a few problems Peter, the government?" Peter's reply? "Yes." The 55% threshold "is causing concern at the moment in public from senior Labour figures, some Conservative privately. And I think that's not going to go away, the concern". Mr Hunt then quoted the criticisms of Lord Falconer. And a half-hearted attempt to put into words what supporters of the move are saying (especially the Lib Dems), he then returned to the attack: "But it's the devil of this 55% that is concerning constitutional experts, senior Labour figures...I mean one constitutional expert said "they're doctoring the constitution, they're priming the pitch" and senior Tories in private...I think the problems for the government will be if senior Tories come out in public to express their views."
*
Nick Cosgrove, one of the BBC's gaggle of left-wing business correspondents, was flagging up more problems for the new government - and seeing who saluted. After talking of 'grim times' for private equity companies, part of that 'grimness' arising from the "proposal by the new coalition government to raise capital gains tax", Cosgrove went hard at it with his main guest Keith Ludeman, CEO of the rail and bus operating company The Go-Ahead Group. Straight away we got "You've got a new transport secretary Philip Hammond to deal with in the new government. Are you optimistic about the coalition and its attitude to your industry?" Mr Ludeman was not going to be drawn into party politics but welcomed some of the coalition's priorities. "That may be the case," replied Nick sceptically, "but transport is going to be low down the list of priorities, below things like health and the police, so we're going to see cuts in the transport budget". (As if we weren't under Labour!!). "Cos the Liberal Democrats actually wanted real cuts in rail fares in their manifesto, which would be disastrous for you?" was the next question. Then Cosgrove bigged up a Labour policy: "What about the free bus passes for the over 60s? I mean that's been very popular. Do you think we can afford them as a nation? Should they be ditched?" He then quipped "I'm sure you get free fares in any case." Mr Ludeman didn't snigger back, probably because he doesn't and wouldn't think of abusing his position in that way. (He's a private sector boss after all, not a public sector manager). Mr Ludeman refused to bite on any of Cosgrove's hooks and was an impressive guest.
*
John Humphrys (6.29am): "Over the next couple of weeks Radio 4 will be taking us back to the 1980s. Here's Carolyn Brown." What did Carolyn say? "We'll have three dramas set against the momentous events of that decade. We begin tonight with a satirical look at the Wapping dispute." The title of the play? "Greed All About It." Do you suspect that all the remaining dramas are going to be similarly negative about that evil decade of Conservative rule? Coming up on 17th May, according to The Radio Times, we will get: "Afternoon Play: The End of the World: It's 1983: The Cold War is raging, Thatcher is in government, Britain is in recession and 17-year old Simon, living in the shadow of Sellafield, is haunted by fears of nuclear holocaust. When he falls in love with Tasha, a beautiful anti-nuclear activist, he sees his chance to make a difference." Is a play on the Miners' Strike (from the perspective of the striking miners naturally) or about the sinking of the Belgrano (not The Falklands Play I bet!) still to come? The BBC have their view of the 1980s. I have mine.
*
With the 6.41 paper review, would fairness win out and the Conservative-backing papers get both the first crack of the whip and the lion's share? Well, no. Still this review was certainly an improvement on the one half an hour earlier. It began again though with the Mirror's Tory-bashing attack over the 55% bar (41.26-41.48) followed by more critical comments from the Guardian (41.48-41.52). The Daily Mail calls it "a shabby stitch-up", so it too got a mention (41.52-41.56). The Cameron interview with the Sun followed (41.56-42.14) with John Humphrys repeating what he said last time but at less length, then came the Telegraph's news of Sam Cam's own "drastic pay cut" (42.14-42.31). Evan then brought us the Independent on Bercow (42.38-42.44). It wouldn't be a Today paper review featuring John Humphrys without the Independent!
*
Humph then discussed DC's first trip as PM to the "potentially more hostile territory of Scotland" with Scotland editor Brian Taylor. (Neither forgot to mention that the Tories have just one seat up there). We were treated to Mr Taylor's opinion that Mr Cameron's statement that he's "going to govern Scotland with respect" (quoted by Humph in a tone of total incredulity) is "a bit vacuous".
*
The ever-present Peter Hennessy was present after 7 o'clock to discuss the protocol for new prime ministers, according to the Today website, but actually was mainly there to discuss the 55% bar. He was "very, very surprised" at the "very, very iffy politics" of the proposal. We learn from his use of the "prime the pitch" phrase that he was the constitutional expert quoted earlier by Peter Hunt (as I suspected). "I really don't think it's on and I'm not in the least bit surprised that people are very worried indeed about it. It creates a very, very poor impression for the new politics". (He's been in too many studios with Norman Smith recently, as the hyperbole is catching).
*
The next section was about Labour: After losing power for the first time in 13 years, is the New Labour project finally over? Two newly-elected Labour MPs, Rachel Reeves (I.C. of 0) and Chris Williamson (I.C.of 0.7), discuss how the party is trying to re-invent itself. John Humphrys presided, asking among other things: "And what about that word 'progressive', that Chris Williamson just used, and people are using all the time now? Maybe you should call yourselves 'The Progressive Labour Party' or 'Labour progressives' or something?"
Humph talked sarcastically about "Nick and Dave" "loving each other" and "almost physically hugging each other"
*
The 7.41 paper review began with another attack on the new government from the Guardian: 41.47-42.00, but the Telegraph followed (42.00-42.20) & then we got the FT's take (briefly) on Europe's economic woes (42.20-42.29). Humph took over and went straight to the Independent and its attacks on the coalition (42.29-42.42). He read this out in a serious tone before adopting a larky tone as to read out the Sun's enthusiastic response to the coalition's first few days (42.42-42.48). Evan Davis took over again & went straight back to the Indie (42.48-43.02) for its take on the first cabinet meeting...before he turned to the Times (43.01-43.11) for a description of Baroness Warsi's dress! John Humph took over again and it was straight back again to the Indie (43.11-43.49), this time for a justice story. They do like the Independent!
*
I mentioned the following segment in my previous post - actually, due to my topsy-turvy methods of composition, it seems like a subsequent post!! - (and note the opening sentence of the Today blurb, which should surely have read "A number of MPs, mostly from the Labour Party, have condemned..."):
0821
MPs have condemned the new government's plans to introduce fixed-term five-year parliaments and raise the threshold at which parliament can be dissolved to 55 percent of a Commons vote. Professor Robert Hazell, director of the Constitution Unit, UCL, and John Gummer (I.C. of 0), a former Tory minister and party chairman, examine the pros and cons of the proposals.
I would just add that Prof Hazell, who has been quite keen in the past to attack the Conservatives over their constitutional agenda - and has been, perhaps not entirely coincidentally, a regular on the BBC doing just that -, by pouring cold water on the fuss over 55% ensured that he, unlike Prof Hennessy, wouldn't get a mention in Clare Spencer's article.