ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

Lord Forsyth: England and Scotland should vote on the future of the Union in May 2009

Lord Forsyth was interviewed last night by Andrew Neil for BBC News' Straight Talk.  In a wide-ranging interview in which he attributed his political conversion to the Adam Smith Institute and urged the party to cut taxes for low income workers, the last Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland urged David Cameron to join with Wendy Alexander and other Unionists and hold a vote on independence next May, 2009.

Alex Salmond's agenda is quite clear, Michael Forsyth told Andrew Neil.  The SNP leader expects - "rightly" - that the Tories will win the next General Election but won't have many MPs from Scotland.  He calculates that that situation will maximise the chances of Scotland voting 'Yes' to independence in 2010.  Following Alex Salmond's timetable, Lord Forsyth argues, won't be in the interests of the Union.  Delay and uncertainty on this issue is "debilitating", bad for business, he says, and the Unionist parties should come together now and "lay the issue to rest" once and for all.  A referendum should ideally be held next May and both the English and Scottish should be able to say whether they want the Union to continue.  [Presumably the Welsh and Northern Irish, too?].

Lord Forsyth said that he was confident that the Union would be affirmed in any such vote.  The SNP, he said, didn't come to power because of their opposition to the Union but simply because it was the party best placed to end Labour rule in Scotland.

Rifkind: Unless we address the West Lothian Question the United Kingdom is in great danger

At the Centre for Policy Studies yesterday evening Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP gave an unscripted address entitled The Unfinished Business of Devolution.  In his wide-ranging remarks he explained why his proposal for an English Grand Committee was superior to that reported to be Ken Clarke's preferred answer to the so-called West Lothian Question.  His key messages (not verbatim) are summarised below:

It is wrong to see this as Scotland V England.  The "unfinished business of devolution" is more complex than that.  Wales and Northern Ireland MPs also have an ability to vote on laws that only apply to the English.  When it comes to reviewing the Barnett formula it is important that it is not portrayed as providing justice for England as against Scotland.  There should be a more sensitive analysis of how different parts of Scotland and different parts of England need to be treated differently than now.  Sir Malcolm contended that, in some respects, the Home Counties have more in common with Edinburgh and Liverpool has more in common with Glasgow.

Devolution has changed a lot but far from everything. At least half of what is relevant to Scotland is still determined by the UK Parliament.  Public expenditure, social security, foreign policy, EU policy and immigration are still determined at Westminster.  What is more: the UK is not a federal state but power has been devolved - meaning that the Westminster parliament can at any time, in extremis, over-rule Cardiff, Edinburgh or Belfast - or even revoke devolution completely.

Scotland and Wales are not moving remorselessly to independence.  Every poll showed that support for independence was in the minority and relatively flat.  The SNP are a minority government in Scotland - outnumbered by unionist parties.  Scots voted SNP for a variety of reasons last year and in the same way many opponents of the euro voted for Tony Blair in 1997, many opponents of independence voted for the SNP.  Alex Salmond knows that his best hope for independence is a breakdown in English-Scottish relations.  That is why he opposes proposals like an English Grand Committee because such proposals tackle the injustices that, unmitigated, could eventually produce a breakdown.

Number Ten to fly flag of St George's tomorrow...

...alongside the Union Jack.

The Guardian has the story:

"Brown will also fly the Scottish saltire on St Andrew's Day and the Welsh dragon on St David's Day. Northern Ireland does not have an official national flag to fly on St Patrick's Day.  The move follows a review of flag-flying practices ordered by Brown when he became prime minister..."

And this bit's great:

"Downing Street said that, in accordance with protocol, the union flag would fly on the "superior" pole, deemed to be the one closest to Buckingham Palace."

What we'd rather have, Mr Brown, is an answer to the West Lothian Question or a fairer funding deal for England.

Ken Clarke to recommend that MPs from Scotland and Wales should retain final say on English laws

Philip Johnston writing for The Telegraph suggests that Ken Clarke's Democracy Taskforce hasn't only, as expected, rejected an English Parliament but it has also rejected Sir Malcolm Rifkind's plan for English Votes for English Laws.

What will emerge from the Taskforce, Johnston predicts, is "a compromise" that will retain a final say on laws that only affect England for MPs from non-English constituencies.  MPs from English seats will have an exclusive right of amendment but nothing more:

"It is a compromise between those who want English votes for English laws and those who would leave things be.  Legislation affecting only England, an education Bill, for instance, would receive a second reading by the entire Commons; but its committee stage, where the measure is subjected to line-by-line scrutiny and can be amended, would be for English MPs only.  When the Bill came back to the Commons for its report stage and third reading, all MPs would again have a vote. But the Government would be bound to accept amendments agreed by the committee, or risk losing the legislation."

At the end of last year there was Scottish Tory relief when David Cameron appeared to emphasise "Unionism" rather than Englishness.

Related link: On today's frontpage there are links relating to Alex Salmond's ambitions for the SNP to hold the balance of power after the next General Election.

Fraser Nelson, ConservativeHome Writer of the Year, on David Cameron as Prime Minister of England

Another great column by Fraser Nelson in this week's Spectator and this seems to be a good time to announce that The Spectator's Political Editor is the Writer of the Year according to the more than 8,000 people who voted in ConservativeHome's 2007/08 movement awards.  Fraser beat The Telegraph's Jeff Randall and ConservativeHome's very own Graeme Archer.

Fraser's focus this week is the success with which Alex Salmond is progressing his plans for Scotland to become independent.  He paints a picture of a small Conservative majority that passes English votes for English laws and then focuses on passing laws that are only focused on England because on those issues David Cameron would have a much larger majority as Prime Minister of England than as Prime Minister of the UK.

"What would put rocket boosters under the issue," continues Fraser Nelson, "would be reform of England’s financial ties with Scotland. Government figures show a £13 billion annual subsidy from England to Scotland."  In the recent ConservativeHome survey of Tory members we asked: What should the next Conservative Government do with the Barnett formula that sees some transfer of taxpayers' money from England to Scotland?

Your answers were clear:

• Only 7% wanted it left as it is.
• 37% wanted to reduce the transfer.
• 49% wanted it eliminated.

The Tories, ahead in the polls, may not want to touch the issue but its potentially as potent as inheritance tax.  Voters respond best to action against unjust taxes.  By promising to phase out even half of the subsidy the Tories could say that they'll use the proceeds to pay for lower taxes on poorer workers - correcting, say, the injustice of the abolition of the 10p tax band.

PlayPolitical: English Democrats' London broadcast

Douglas Carswell MP calls for Speaker Martin to go

Last week we learnt that David Cameron vetoed a vote of no confidence in The Speaker and up until this morning there had been a reluctance on the part of all MPs to criticise Michael Martin.  MPs have been afraid to criticise the man who calls them in debates and for questions.  Thankfully one MP has broken ranks in today's Mail on Sunday and called for The Speaker to go.  Here is a key extract from what Douglas Carswell MP has written for the MoS:

"At a recent constituency coffee morning, an elderly lady demanded to know if it were true that "you MPs have spent a fortune on lawyers to keep your expenses secret".  I haven't, but the Speaker has. And that, surely, is the point.  I am a Member of the House of Commons, yet the 'men-in-tights' have acted without giving either me, or my colleagues, a real say as to how they have handled this mess.

No other MPs have so far been willing to speak out. I am the first. Apparently, I am told, it's "just not cricket". It's "not what one does if one wants to get on". Besides, don't I know that if I upset him, Mr Speaker might not call me to speak in a debate again?  Well, I'm trying to represent my constituents, not play cricket. I am not in politics to "get on" but to speak up. And if Mr Speaker does take umbrage and not call on me to speak, surely that merely reinforces the point I am trying to make?  Too many MPs, alas, simply don't get it. There is too much tearoom talk of "media witch-hunts" and "irresponsible journalists"."

Douglas - who writes regular posts for CentreRight.com - believes that Parliament needs radical reform.  He uses his article to attack the MPs who are slaves to the executive in the hope of one day becoming "minister for widgets".  He calls for the chairmen of Select Committees to be chosen by free votes of all MPs and not by the Whips.  He says most big government departments are now run by unaccountable officials and too many UK powers have been lost to Europe. He calls for electors to have the right to "recall" "wayward" MPs during a Parliament.  He also believes that the public should be able to petition Parliament and put issues on to its agenda for debate.

And in wanting all of this Mr Carswell sees the Speaker as an opponent of real modernisation and reform.  Douglas is right.  The sooner the Speaker is replaced, the better.

New all party group set up to defend First Past The Post

Daniel Kawczynski MP is leading efforts to create an All Party Parliamentary Group devoted to defending the FPTP electoral system against the possibility of Brown pushing a new system through Parliament. If he did, a system like Alternative Voting would wipe out the Tory majority, as predicted in the latest ICM poll.

A copy of his letter to Labour MPs has been copied below. Twenty-five Labour MPs joined straightaway (especially those with experience of PR in Scotland) and three to four times that number are expected to join in the coming months - a sufficiently high number to make Brown think twice when he already has so many other rebellions brewing.

Has Labour's revived interest in voting reform got anything to do with the Conservatives' 16% poll lead?

The lead story in today's Guardian suggests that Gordon Brown and Jack Straw are planning radical voting reform. Weekend voting, compulsory voting and a second or alternative vote in elections to the Commons are all under consideration.  A cynic might see Labour's interest in these reforms as a product of an increasingly weak opinion poll position and an early sign that Labour will be wooing Mr Clegg very intensively in the (very possible) event of a hung parliament.

Conservative Justice spokesman Nick Herbert has issued this statement:

"It's a sure sign that Labour fear they will lose the election when they want to move the electoral goal posts to rig the result. Rather than fiddling with the voting system for partisan advantage, ministers should focus on rebuilding trust in politics, returning power to communities, and tackling electoral fraud which is undermining the integrity of British politics."

No time to blog in detail now but AV could quite easily lead to less proportionate outcomes and if Mr Brown is really interested in restoring trust in politics he should try keeping manifesto promises. Our own view is that the biggest drivers of turnout are a competitive race with a real change of national direction at stake. A political system that makes the LibDens the nation's permanent powerbrokers isn't good for democracy. In the best democracies the voters can 'kick the rascals out'!

Twenty-five ways to restore public trust in politics

The latest ConservativeHome monthly survey is still live.  1,622 people have answered so far.  If you haven't had your say yet please click here.

After testing your support or opposition to commonly discussed measures to restore public trust in politics (the results of which will be published when voting closes) we asked for your own ideas.  Here are twenty-five - paraphrased by us but not necessarily endorsed by us:

The powers of government

• Public education of what the different layers of government - local, national and European - can achieve so that expectations are more accurately set.
• More decisions to be taken locally.
• A massive return of powers from Europe to Westminster.
• Much greater public scrutiny of appointments to quangoes and other publicly-funded bodies to prevent them being stuffed with inexperienced people with good political connections.

Better democracy at Westminster

• A term limit for The Speaker.
• Radical reform of Prime Minister's Question Time so that it delivers real accountability.  If the PM doesn't answer the question The Speaker should require him to do so.
  
• Fixed term parliaments so that Prime Ministers cannot manipulate the electoral cycle.
• Free (unwhipped) votes on any Bills that weren't included in a party's manifesto.
  
• Stopping MPs from Scotland and Wales from voting on laws that only affect English constituents.
• Seats of equal size so that an English voter has the same representation as a voter in Scotland or Wales.
• Ban anyone from under the age of 30 working as researchers in Parliament.  If their research staff had lived a little MPs might be better advised.

A Conservative government will deliver "fair seats"

It appears that one of ConservativeHome's campaigns for 2008 can be retired.  Our campaign for fair seats was launched in January and was given a positive reception by Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Herbert at the time.  This morning the party has confirmed that it will move to a system with votes have "equal value".  The Tory proposals are as follows:

"> Conservatives will reform the electoral system to ensure Parliamentary constituencies are of equal size and better reflect the size of the current electorate in that seat.

> We will end the wide disparities in the size of UK Parliamentary constituencies, by introducing a fixed UK electoral quota (i.e. the electorate divided by the number of seats), allowing only for a small margin of difference to avoid splitting local government wards. Correspondingly, Boundary Commission regulations should be amended to ensure maintaining an equal quota was the rule with priority over other considerations. This will require primary legislation.

Cameron attacks broken promises ninety minutes after Spelman encourages celebration of defectors

9.32am: Press release from CCHQ urging Tory councillors to welcome defections

Caroline Spelman will tell Tory councillors: “These are exciting times and we have to build on our progress by welcoming, supporting and celebrating people who come over to us.  For the Conservatives the term defection should no longer be seen as a dirty word but as a positive choice.”"

11.06am: Press release from CCHQ with David Cameron's message about restoring public trust in politicians

David Cameron on broken promises: "There are the straightforward broken promises.  They pledged a referendum on the EU Constitution… and broke their promise.  They swore they wouldn’t introduce tuition fees… and broke their promise.  I could go on. There are many other examples, each broken promise breaking people’s trust and breaking our politics just that little bit more… until none of the promises are believed any more."

If the Tories are serious about becoming the anti-politics party - the party that restores public trust in politics - they are going to have to make some tough and sacrificial choices.  A different attitude to defectors might be a good place to start.  It is in the interest of a political party to welcome defectors.  It is in the interests of a defecting politician to jump ship if it increases their chance of preferment.  But are defections in the interests of the voter?  Do the voters of Grantham who voted for a Conservative MP feel they got what they expected when Quentin Davies joined Brown during his honeymoon?  Do they feel Mr Davies honoured the promises of the Tory manifesto on which he was elected?  Do the people of Lancashire and Cumbria who voted for a Europhile party feel pleased that Sajjad Karim MEP defected to the Eurosceptic Conservatives last year?

Encouraging and welcoming defectors may be perfectly consistent with David Cameron's new pro-voter line but are we prepared to say that defectors should be subject to the kind of recall mechanism that 27 Tory MPs proposed yesterday?  Are we prepared to allow Lord Mancroft to straight-talk without being rebuked by the party leader?  Are we prepared to say that political parties shouldn't receive one penny more of taxpayers' money until they've stopped wasting the money they already receive on billboards and expensive consultants?  Are we prepared to say that the real problem is the increasing powerlessness of the Westminster Parliament and the agreement of the main parties on so many issues?

ConservativeHome fully supports David Cameron's pro-voter line but if he is serious about renewing our democracy the party needs to be still more serious about changing the way it thinks and operates.

Cameron outlines agenda for restoring public trust in politics but he faces warnings from old guard

David Cameron has been speaking to Welsh Conservatives - on St David's Day - and has focused on the breakdown of trust between voters and politicians:

"Trust in Parliament fell from 54 per cent in 1983 to 14 per cent in 2000.  Since then it’s got even worse.  Our Parliament is scorned. Our parties are shrinking.  Our membership is ageing.  It’s getting harder to find candidates willing to stand in council elections.  As far as the public is concerned, politicians are all the same.  Not because they all say the same thing, but because they all do the same thing.   Let's be clear what they think of us: "you lie and you spin, you fiddle your expenses and you break your promises."  To describe this disengagement and cynicism as a ‘mood’ is to underestimate both the depth and the intensity of the breakdown in relations between the government and the governed."

The strongly-worded bold sentence is our emphasis and his attempt to say, 'I get it'.

He highlights broken promises, spin and ineffective, top-down government as the causes of this problem.

The Conservative leader then highlights what he proposes to do about the problem:

1. "No more MPs voting on their own pay."
2. "Closing the final salary MP pension scheme."
3. "Clear declaration of expenses and allowances."
4. Honouring promises (he says that he has honoured the promises he made when campaigning for the Tory leadership on diversity of candidates and addressing social breakdown).
5. A reduction in the number of spin doctors.
6. Independence for the Whitehall statistical service.
7. "Budget speeches that contain all the facts."
8. Petitions to Parliament that trigger debates on subjects of importance to voters.
9. More local referenda and a new right for voters to veto high council tax rises.

The 2005 Conservative intake recommends new powers for voters to remove ethically questionable MPs

Yesterday, in a comment left on CentreRight.com (and discussed by Jonathan Isaby on Three Line Whip), Robert Key MP questioned the dedication of some of the younger MPs:

"Too many young Members are entirely predictable in what they say and how they vote. They are just as boring as the handful of insecure MPs who only ever speak about their constituencies and forget they are sent here as independent representatives to shape national policies and decisions and Britain's place in the world."

Well the younger MPs - 27 of the 2005 intake (listed opposite) - are certainly setting the pace on public trust in politicians this morning.  In a letter to The Telegraph they say that consideration should be given to constituents having the power to "recall" Members of Parliament between elections:

"We would want safeguards to be put in place to ensure that this mechanism was not abused, such as requiring a high percentage of registered voters in a constituency to petition for a recall ballot, or only permitting a recall ballot when the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee has recommended it as a sanction.  None the less, a mechanism of this sort used in exceptional circumstances would increase MPs' accountability, address some of the frustration felt by a disenchanted public and help restore trust in our democratic institutions."

ConservativeHome strongly supports this initiative - it was one of the recommendations we made in the fourth theme of our still unfolding Agenda 2008.  We are also encouraged to learn that the letter was submitted with the full knowledge of the Tory leadership.  On his blog yesterday, Guido noted that the Tories were waking up to the scale of voter discontent with the political establishment.  We can only hope so.  The party leadership still has a long way to go if it is to convince this site that it is genuinely anti-establishment.  Admitting that he has been wrong about supporting more state funding for political parties and ending the incumbent-favouring control freakery that has characterised the reselection of MEPs would be signs that David Cameron was really serious.  He shouldn't be afraid of admitting he was wrong on state funding.  Voters are very supportive of politicians who hold their hands up, say sorry and adopt a position in tune with them.

Related link: Matthew Elliott of The TaxPayers' Alliance on how an anti-politician strategy is the right way forward

4pm: Dan Hannan salutes David Gauke's role in producing the letter

Time's up, Mr Speaker

"Times's up" was one of the familiar phrases of former Speaker, Betty Boothroyd.  It's time for Michael Martin to realise that time is up for his tenure as Speaker.

Here are the key reasons:

He favours the Labour Government: "Mr Martin has connived with the Labour leadership against both its own backbenchers and Opposition MPs. His rulings from the chair too often are fumbling, incoherent and often downright partisan. To give just one recent example, he bizarrely ruled out of order an amendment by Labour MPs calling for a referendum on the European constitution." (Telegraph)

His own ethical lapses: "Mr Martin has been forced to admit that he used air miles, accumulated when he flew at our expense, to fly seven members of his family on business-class trips from Glasgow to London for a New Year break.  And this is the man expected to ensure others behave honourably?" (Daily Mail)

His poor judgment: "Mr Martin chose to put the allowances inquiry in the hands of a committee, five of whose six members have come in for criticism over their own financial dealings. One of them even claimed £3,300 on his Commons expenses for a quad bike." (Daily Mail)

His delays to necessary reform: "Michael Martin faced down a plan for MPs to declare their spouses in the Register of Members of Interests, the Evening Standard is reporting.  Last week plans from Sir George Young (a contender to replace Martin) emerged for an 11th column for listing relatives enforced by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. These have been defeated because "pressure has been put on the standards and privileges committee to shelve the proposal so as not to upstage the Speaker's own report, due later this year." (RedBox, Times)

BBC is reporting tonight that the Speaker's spokesman has resigned after misleading a journalist at the Mail on Sunday about the Speaker's wife using taxis for shopping.  It is increasingly clear that a new Speaker - someone with the moral authority, for example, of Sir George Young - is needed to help restore the standing of MPs and Parliament.

7.15pm: Over at CentreRight Conor Burns wants MPs to be more active in ending Michael Martin's tenure.

David Cameron's press conference focuses on restoring trust in politics

ITN's Tom Bradby and BBC's Nick Robinson listen to David Cameron at this morning's regular press conference held by the Tory leader.

Highlights of the press conference:

David Cameron launched the latest report of the Democracy Taskforce which focuses on restoring trust in politics.  David Cameron ran through its six main recommendations and said that he was attracted to almost all of them:

• A £10m cap on total election spending and a £50K cap on individual donations.
• That the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should investigate breaches of the ministerial code.
• That the process by which ministers and civil servants consult on jobs they take after public office should be put on a statutory basis.
• MPs should no longer vote on their own pay but an independent review body should decide their remuneration.  The review process should include a link to a civil service employment grade.
• MPs' allowances should be tidied and the Communications Allowance abolished.
• The MPs' pensions scheme should be closed to new entrants.  Ben Brogan has a little more on this.

George Pascoe Watson of The Sun asked about ConservativeHome's campaign on public spending.  David Cameron said that the public spending settlement with 2% growth was  already quite tight and there was no case to change it.

He said that he stood by his remarks of last week when he praised the "fascinating" Barack Obama.  He was also a great admirer of John McCain, he said, but his overall position was to watch with interest and not endorse any candidate.

He did not support Tony Blair becoming EU President because he did not support the idea of having an EU President.

After David Cameron confirmed that he would instruct frontbenchers to vote for a 1.9% pay increase for MPs Ben Brogan asked a tough question about the fact that half of his shadow cabinet was pursuing outside paid jobs.  David Cameron replied that they were all delivering the goods but would obviously have to stop outside jobs once they were in government.

The Mirror asked if he'd kept his New Year's resolution to stop smoking.  He said that he had (although Glen Oglaza isn't 100% convinced by Mr C's choice of words) and encouraged The Mirror to adopt a resolution of its own not to go through his rubbish bins.  Some time ago The Sunday Mirror had gone through his trash and found environmentally-unfriendly nappies but nappies, apparently, that Mr Cameron's severely disabled son needs.

And finally ConservativeHome asked Mr Cameron if he sympathised with Dizzy Thinks' concern that MPs have to report donations etc to two bodies - as is at the core of confusion with George Osborne's difficulties.  The Conservative leader said that rationalisation "would be worthwhile" but that it didn't need to be done from "on high".  The Electoral commission could streamline procedures in direct talks with the parliamentary authorities.  Mr Cameron agreed from personal experience that double reporting was frustrating.

The Guardian's Andrew Sparrow live-blogged the press conference.

It's time for 'fairer seats'

Just before Christmas ConservativeHome raised the issue of "unfair seats".  On Monday's Platform Conor Burns explained the problem in much more detail:

"If Labour and the Conservatives had the same vote share [at the 2005 General Election] Labour would still have won 111 more seats. If the Conservatives had the same lead over Labour as Labour did over the Conservatives, Labour would still have had 57 more seats. Only a Conservative lead of 6.4% would have resulted in equality of seats and the Conservatives would have required a lead of 11.8% before gaining an overall majority."

Read Conor's full arguments here.

There are many ways of addressing the problem of unfair seats.  Options include more regular boundary commission reviews.  A greater willingness to allow boundaries of Westminster seats to cross natural or local authority boundaries.  Equalisation of the size of Welsh, Scottish and English seats.  During the course of 2008 we'll be examining all of the options and pressing the Conservative Party to then make a manifesto commitment to address this issue.  I hope ConservativeHome readers like Tim Roll-Pickering, who has consistently made intelligent comments on this issue, will help us achieve a good final proposal. 

Our bottom line is that the electoral system needs to be fairer and it needs to be reformed so that the election of a majority Conservative Government isn't such an uphill struggle.

Oliver Heald MP, who used to have responsibility for constitutional affairs in the shadow cabinet, believes in full equalisation of seats:

"It’s time we had fair votes in the UK - and no – I don’t mean Proportional Representation!! Votes in different parts of the UK have different values due to the wide variations in the size of constituencies. This strikes at the heart of the democratic principle of equal voting rights for citizens. We should end the disparities by introducing a fixed electoral quota – the electorate divided by the number of seats – with only a small margin to avoid splitting council wards.  Currently the Boundary Commission chooses not to cross county boundaries and uses old electoral data in making its final recommendations. This creates an urban bias in the system and fails to take adequate account of net migration from the cities. We should change the Regulations to put maintaining an equal quota as the rule with priority over other considerations."

The current shadow cabinet minister with responsibility for this issue, Nick Herbert, Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, doesn't go as far but in a statement issued to ConservativeHome opens the door to a manifesto promise:

"Ideally electoral boundaries would stay as closely linked to established county or district borders as possible, but population growth often makes this impossible.  On balance, it's more important that MPs represent roughly the same size of population than we remain wedded to old boundaries that allow population disparities to grow widely.  I think boundary reviews should be conducted more frequently to take account of population changes, and they should use more up-to-date data."

Mr Herbert describes Labour's inaction on "fair seats" as "yet another example of Labour's willingness to allow distortion of the electoral system for their partisan ends."

Both Oliver and Nick issued much fuller statements and you can read a pdf of them here.

This is the first of ten items on ConservativeHome's 'Agenda 2008'.  All agenda items reflect the opinions of the ConservativeHome Members' Panel.  in the end-December poll 84% agreed that "parliamentary constituencies for the House of Commons should roughly be of the same population size."  Other findings of that survey will be released soon.

"Fair seats"

We are all familar with the LibDems' campaign for "fair votes" (a populist name for proportional representation - the case for which was demolished by William Norton here and here).  Perhaps the Conservatives need to be campaigning for "fair seats" or "fair constituency sizes" or something that rolls off the tongue a little more easily?

The unfair electoral system was the core theme of an article by Michael Brown in this morning's Independent.  He notes the huge gap between Brown losing his majority (he only needs to lose 32 seats) and of Cameron winning a majority (the Tory leader needs to win another 130 seats).  Mr Brown, a former Conservative MP, concludes that "a hung Parliament is now becoming the most likely outcome in 2010" and that it is in the interests of the Tories to move in the direction of PR because of the "bias and unfairness in the electoral system".

Michael Brown jumps to the wrong conclusion.  What we need isn't a change to our electoral system but a revolution in the process by which constituency boundaries are updated.  It currently takes, William Norton has noted, 26,908 votes to elect a Labour MP but 44,373 votes to elect a Conservative.  A large part of the explanation for this is the fact that southern and rural seats (which tend to be Tory) are decidedly larger than northern and urban seats (which are more likely to be Labour).  This difference in size reflects an often yawning gap between census reviews and boundary commission reviews - a yawning gap that Labour has little incentive to remedy.  Changes to constituency boundaries can take place many years after a population has shifted towards the south and the countryside.  There is also a problem of Scottish and Welsh constituencies being smaller although this is less of an issue than it was.

Perhaps Ken Clarke's Democracy Taskforce could investigate ways of accelerating the boundary review process?

Scottish Tory "relief" at Cameron's decision to emphasise Unionism, not Englishness

This is an interesting time for Scotland's Conservatives.  For the first time in a decade they are enjoying limited power as they work with the minority SNP administration in Edinburgh to secure the passage of individual pieces of legislation.  Last week also saw the party commit more solidly to devolution than at any previous time; when Annabel Goldie, Scottish Tory leader, joined with Labour and LibDems to support a Constitutional Commission on 'Stage Two' of devolution.  None of this is producing an upsurge in fortunes for the Scottish party, however.  A poll last week showed the Scottish Tories languishing at just 12% or 13%.  Plans for a distinct Scottish Party have been shelved for the time-being.  A number of senior Scottish-born Tories - both at Holyrood and Westminster - raised strong objections to the idea.

David Cameron heads to Edinburgh today to speak to Scottish Conservatives and Edinburgh businesspeople.  In advance of his visit he has given an interview to The Telegraph in which he promises to be a Unionist first before 'pandering' to the possibilities of winning English votes.  He urges voters to get the Barnett formula and the transfer of money from the English to Scottish taxpayer "in perspective".  He says that the Tory manifesto will address the West Lothian Question but the solution will not necessarily be the one recommended by Sir Malcolm Rifkind.

One Scottish Tory MSP speaking to ConservativeHome feels that the mood of the London Conservatives has changed in recent weeks:

"We were worried that Cameron might have risked the Union when the party's opinion poll rating was so weak.  There was a strong temptation to go for the English vote and play the Scottish card against Brown.  That temptation has faded as the Tory opinion poll rating has risen.  We now believe that Cameron's Unionism is coming back to the fore and that is a huge relief." 

A YouGov poll for The Telegraph shows that 62% of English voters do not think that Scots MPs should have the right to vote on English/ Welsh legislation.  63% do not believe that Scotland's higher public expenditure is justified.  27% of English voters think that the Conservatives are more likely to stand up for England's interests compared to just 10% trusting Labour.  57%, however, think it will make no difference.

David Cameron likely to adopt Rifkind plan to address West Lothian Question

The BBC reports this morning, based on a story in The Observer, that the Conservatives are likely to formally adopt a proposal, originally made by Sir Malcolm Rifkind, that only MPs representing English constituencies will be able to legislate on English matters:

"The proposal would allow MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to continue to sit together in the Commons to vote on UK-wide matters such as taxation, foreign policy and defence.  It would be up to the Commons speaker to decide which matters should be referred to the English Grand Committee, which would sit in the House of Commons chamber."

If the Tories go down this path it will become an explosive issue at the next General Election.  The Tories would be effectively saying that Gordon Brown, as Prime Minister, had no authority to vote on large parts of legislation affecting England.

Scottish Office minister David Cairns MP told The Observer that the proposal was "utterly unworkable":

"Taken to its logical extent it would create multiple categories of MPs. Where does it end? Do the Tories think only London MPs should vote on Crossrail, only countryside MPs vote on fox hunting, only coastal MPs vote on fishing? It is utterly impracticable.  'Take the English smoking ban. This was proposed in clauses in a bill which applied to the whole of the UK. Would the Tories seriously take those clauses out into the grand committee for consideration?'"

The proposal is likely to be warmly greeted by Conservative members.  A ConservativeHome.com poll in July 2006 found that 82% "favour English and Welsh MPs being given sole control of laws affecting England and Wales".  Many will regard this commitment as only the first step, however, in putting the England-Scotland relationship back on track.  63% support complete elimination of the UK taxpayers' subsidy of Scotland.  A higher proportion would likely support its reduction.

On yesterday's Platform, Murdo Fraser MSP recommended that the party proceeds cautiously in these matters but that new solutions were necessary:

"It is not for me as a Scot to say whether there should now be a wholly separate English Parliament, but I detect little serious enthusiasm for it.  I suspect that most English voters would be happy with Westminster continuing to both as a UK legislature and as a de facto English Parliament, in the latter case with the exclusion of the Scottish, Northern Irish and (if appropriate) Welsh MPs, if a way could be found to make this work. The financial arrangements require to be looked at too."

Murdo warned not to fall into traps set by the SNP's Alex Salmond.  In, The Observer, Ruaridh Nicoll thinks that the Tories may be ignoring this warning:

"The truth is that Salmond is working out how to avoid Scotland's voters. He is needling the English at every opportunity. He complained about Scotland receiving too little cash while ensuring English students will be the only ones who have to pay. He is bringing down class sizes and offering free school meals for all (a trial has just begun). Eventually, he figures, English Tories will turn against Scotland, and a split become inevitable. Our front-page report suggests this is already beginning to happen."

Is it time for fixed-term parliaments?

I'm beginning to think that it is.  I've asked a variety of Tories here in Blackpool and nearly everyone agrees with me.  There is something not quite right that a governing party can go to the country with years to still to run in the parliament.  What do you think?

8pm PS: I've just seen a news report of remarks by Sir Malcolm Rifkind on the fringe.  Sir Malcolm said that an autumn election would be a "constitutional outrage" and The Queen should tell Mr Brown that he can't have an early election should he take the Jaguar to Buckingham Palace anytime soon!

How to fight a referendum

Last week William Norton offered readers some of the lessons he learned from being the official referendum agent for the North East Says NO campaign. The five-part series was written in the context of a possible referendum on the EU constitution so it's definitely worth a read:

• Use political parties as they have the necessary resources, but the campaign should be ran by a one-off specialist team
• Make the argument on your own terms by finding and sticking to a line that opens up the soft areas of the other side's potential support
• Know all the boring details and use them against the Yes campaign, who will want to focus on vague aspirations
• Ignore fringe elements that threaten to derail the designated No campaign
• Hire a team of lawyers to navigate the messy referendum laws and to keep the government and BBC on their toes

First blood to Cameron in Commons blast at Brown

Gordon Brown has told the Commons that he wants to deliver a new "constitutional settlement" for the British people:

• He promised twelve transfer of powers from the Prime Minister and the Executive to Parliament - including the Executive's powers to declare war, request the dissolution of Parliament and key public appointments (including the Governor of the Bank of England and Church of England bishops).
• He promised the creation of a National Security Council - an idea already proposed by Pauline Neville-Jones some months ago (he went on to nick at least two other Tory ideas).
• He promised a new ministerial code overseen by an independent adjudicator.
• He also called for a cross-party debate on a new written Constitution and floated ideas such as weekend voting and a lower voting age.
• In his only clear nod to the LibDems on PR he promised a full report on the success of the new voting methods used since Labour came to power.
• Some civil libertarians would be pleased with his announcement that the restrictions on protests in Parliament Square could be lifted.

David Cameron then had an opportunity to respond - in his first parliamentary clash with Gordon Brown as the new Prime Minister - and his response was very impressive.  In a key passage he said:

"Constitutional change is not the solution because the constitution is not the cause: the cause is broken promises. People will ask how the person who broke this trust can be the person to mend it."

British life is too centralised, the Leader of the Opposition said, and Gordon Brown had been the great centraliser of the last ten years.

The new Prime Minister wants more openness and honesty but as Chancellor, Gordon Brown had levied taxation stealthily and failed to answer questions on the tax credit chaos.

He challenged Gordon Brown to reverse the transfer of power from democratically elected local councils to unelected regional assemblies.

What was the new Prime Minister going to do about the fact that there were two classes of MP in Britain?  MPs for English seats who had no influence on Scottish matters and Scottish MPs like Gordon Brown who could decide how English hospitals and schools were run.

He ended with an attack on Gordon Brown's failure to grant a referendum on the draft European Treaty.  It was, David Cameron said, yet another broken Labour promise.

The Prime Minister responded by joking that he thought David Cameron had wanted to end Punch and Judy politics.  He quoted Ken Clarke two or three times to back up his positions and embarrass David Cameron but this was definitely an exchange won by the Conservative leader.  He will have raised morale on the Tory benches.  It's the first Brown-Cameron PMQs tomorrow.  ConservativeHome will be live blogging it.

Today's Constitutional announcements are all about Labour-LibDem relations

Later today Gordon Brown will speak to the Commons about his plans for Constitutional reform.  The BBC predicts that he is likely to propose a British bill of rights and to give Parliament the decisive say on going to war and on the scrutiny of more political appointments.  These are all ideas also associated in various forms with David Cameron.  We do not know for sure what Brown is going to say because he is emphasising that he wants to tell Parliament first.  It'll be interesting to see how long that lasts!

Delayed by the terror scares this will be Brown's first substantial announcement as Prime Minister.  The Today programme have trailed it as being his big idea.  Constitutional reform is unlikely to get voters very excited so why is Gordon Brown making such a big deal of it?  It must be all about preparing the way for the possible need for a LibDem-Labour coalition after the next General Election.  Staying in Number 10 is Gordon Brown's real big idea and Constitutional reform is the big carrot he will dangle before Ming or whoever is LibDem leader after the next polling day.

The Express is speculating that Gordon Brown is secretly plotting to change the voting system for Westminster.  A more proportional voting system for MPs would certainly win the backing of LibDems.  I wouldn't expect anything so bold from Brown but hints of PR for the Lords or even local government might be enough to snare them.  We'll blog on the Commons statement later.

Principled House of Lords ignores FOI Amendment

After the outrage following the successful passage of David Maclean's amendment to the Free dom of Information Bill, David Cameron said the Conservative Lords would vote against it. Maclean later made it clear that expenses would be excluded (the quad bike issue necessitated it) but still had trouble finding a Lord to sponsor it, although it looked like Lord Trefgarne would pick up the baton at one stage.

A bill has to be sponsored within twelve sitting days of it being introduced to the Lords. That deadline expired last night and the Public Bill Office confirmed that, fortunately, no-one had come forward.

That this amendment could pass through the Commons but not find a single backer in the Lords symbolises the disparity in principle between the two Houses. Whether down to the whips having less control or the nature of the individual peers, it often seems that when the Commons is a cold house for a mainstream view (particularly socially conservative ones), "the other place" will provide shelter.

Deputy Editor

Clarke proposes power shift to MPs and online voters

David Cameron and Ken Clarke held a joint press conference this morning to present the latest recommendations of the Democracy Taskforce.   Throughout the summer there will be a number of these reports and it will then be for the shadow cabinet to decide which recommendations are embraced.

The principal recommendations are summarised in the box on the right.

Perhaps the headline-grabbing idea was the suggestion that voters will be able to petition Parliament to hold debates on topics of popular concern.  At the press conference David Cameron said that such petitions could connect Simon de Montfort's Parliament with the MySpace generation:

"I would like to see a system whereby, if enough people sign an online petition in favour of a particular motion, then a debate is held in Parliament, followed by a vote – so that the public know what their elected representatives actually think about the issues that matter to them."

Ken Clarke, responding to a question from Gary Gibbon that these petitions could all be orchestrated by tabloid newspapers, said that there would be filters from a 'Legislative Business Committee'.  Parliament, he said, should not be debating whether West Ham should have points deducted.  That'll be a relief to Iain Dale.

Editor's comment: "This appears to be an excellent report. The emphasis on more powers for select committees - with MPs choosing their chairman freely by secret ballot - will tilt the power away from the executive to parliament.  The thrust of Ken Clarke's report would see MPs rather than the Government of the day having more power to choose which issues are debated.  The former Chancellor said that the Government's stranglehold on the timetabling of debates meant that issues were often presented as a fait accompli.  He highlighted the Iraq war debate and the timetabling of the vote for the eve of the invasion.

David Cameron hoped that select committees - with extra powers - would become a new career path for MPs.  The brightest and best, he said, would no longer see frontbench duties as superior to becoming powerful scrutineers of the executive.  The petition idea was a very interesting one and there is, of course, nothing to stop David Cameron introducing something similar on conservatives.com while in Opposition.  If the Conservative Party is to be in the vanguard of the internet revolution it should be building online communities now.  If I was head of internet strategy at CCHQ I'd be inviting people to petition for policy issues to be addressed and holding indicative (and sometimes binding) votes on policy group recommendations."

***
This post summarises other recommendations of Ken Clarke's Democracy Taskforce.