Tag Archives: constitutional-reform

Remembering ’97

Today was a family day, but I still managed to catch most of the key moments of the 1997 General Election results on BBC Parliament. I was having problem with our set top box but I just managed to tune in in time for David Mellor.

It was weird watching it – on the night itself I watched the coverage with about 500 other people in the Main Debating Hall at the University of Manchester Students Union. The film society, which I was also an active member of, was projecting the coverage on its big screen (I understand that the union has managed to kick MUFS out of the building now, which is a crying shame).

The Mellor bit I recall quite vividly, right down to Dimblebum making a wild prediction during it that the Lib Dems were set to win 61 seats (in fact it took us another 8 years to get to that point). His rant about Goldsmith failing to buy the election was much mocked at the time, but he had a point: millionaires should not presume to buy elections out of personal vanity. Goldsmith, having largely failed in his mission, was dead within weeks.

Neil Hamilton was as ungracious in defeat as I remembered (I’d forgotten about the Miss Moneypenny Party, with their candidate towering over the returning officer), Michael Portillo very much the opposite. Two points about the Enfield Southgate announcement. Firstly, Jeremy Browne was the Lib Dem candidate. Secondly, the BBC commentary was by Lance Price, who quite soon afterwards of course jumped into a job at Number 10.

The Enfield Southgate declaration was swiftly followed by the Stevenage one. I remember seeing Alex Wilcock standing on stage with his partner Richard (these were pre-millennial times, otherwise, I suspect a certain elephant would have been there as well) – at the time he was one of the few people I knew who was actually a candidate.

All the Lib Dems being interviewed kept talking about the Lib-Lab constitutional deal. Of course, a large amount of that was indeed delivered – it seems odd to hear people talking about creating a Scottish Parliament, Freedom of Information Act and Human Rights Act as these are all very much part of our daily politics now. Shirley Williams prediction that this was the last – or at worst last-but-one election to be fought under first past the post however proved to be somewhat wide of the mark.

Blair looked close to tears when he spoke at the Sedgefield Labour Club, and shockingly young. Various other faces popped up as well, such as Nicola Sturgeon, then 27, at the Glasgow Govan declaration (with black hair!). Peter Snow’s graphics were fantastic, particularly the animation where they flew over the UK showing Labour/Lib Dem target seats exploding and transforming from blue to red/gold (it reminded me of a cross between the post-2004 BBC weather map and the Death Star trench battle at the end of Star Wars).

If we’d known then how it would all turn out, very few of us would have cheered as loudly as we did, but nonetheless it was a fantastic evening. With the Tories now back on the rise and Labour in long term decline, it is just conceivable that we might have a similarly momentous General Election next time around, or maybe the next-but-one. Can the Tories make the bulk of non-Labour, non-Tory supporters as happy for them as we were for Labour winning 10 years ago? I suspect the answer is no, and I suspect that lies at the heart of Cameron’s problems.

I should explain that last sentence better. As the coverage today repeatedly reminded us, Labour’s vote share in 1997 wasn’t actually that high. What did it for them was the degree of tactical voting, with people voting for anyone but the Tories. Fewer and fewer people are prepared to vote in such a way, but the Tories only really have a shot if the public becomes so sick of Labour that they start to vote tactically against them. I don’t see that happening, not in the numbers that it did in 1997. People are open to Cameron, but the Tory brand remains toxic.

Lords Reform Day

It’s all go around here…

Dear supporter,


Lords Reform Day has been tentatively scheduled as 7 March 2007: this is the day that, following two days of debate, MPs will be given a free vote on composition of the House of Lords.

Elect the Lords and Unlock Democracy have set up Lords Reform Day to help build up a caucus of reform over the next few weeks. We are asking supporters to help us by emailing their friends, promoting the site on their own website or blog and adding their name as a supporter.

In particular, we are extremely keen to encourage people to write to their MPs over the next few weeks – even if you already have done before. With the vote now just weeks away, every letter sent to your MP will help to concentrate their minds. To look up your MP’s voting record on Lords Reform, and write to them online, please follow this link: http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/lrd/write.php

We are also supporting the Rally for a Democratic House of Lords, which will be held in the House of Commons Grand Committee Room on Monday 26 February from 7pm. Chaired by Chris Bryan MP, Neil Kinnock, Charles Kennedy and Ken Clarke have been invited to speak.

If you are able to get there, I do hope you will attend. Please email info@electthelords.org.uk to let us know you will be coming.

Finally, we are hosting a meeting with the Canadian High Commission on the recent Canadian experience on Senate and party funding reform. Places are filling up now, so please remember to book your place.

Best wishes,

Peter Facey
Director, Unlock Democracy

The English Question: I agree with a Tory shocker!

Prospect has an excellent quartet of articles on the subject of the “English Question” this month.  The four authors have very different perspectives, but they all agree that breaking up the union would be bad and the Tory’s “English Votes on English Matters” proposal is no solution.

Malcolm Rifkind’s proposal for an English Grand Committee, for me, is an excellent fudge and one that Lib Dems ought to very much be pushing for.  It allows a degree of nuance that EVoEM does not, which in turn means that Parliament will be the ultimate arbiters and not the courts.

Chris Huhne is right as well to point out that PR would be a very important mitigating factor.  For me, both proposals would complement each other very well.

To summarise, my (continually evolving) approach to the problem would be:

  • A sustained agenda for radical devolution to local authorities;
  • Proportional representation to remove the exaggerated problems caused by FPTP;
  • Rifkind-style English Grand Committee;
  • A Spanish-style constitutional settlement allowing any geographical part of the UK (including England, but also including parts of England) to call for further devolution and autonomy, handled through a citizen’s initiative system.

This is an area that liberal unionists should be taking a keen interest in: so far the nationalists, including the Tories, have been doing all the running.  The Lib Dems desperately need a position instead of burying their heads in the sand.