Month: November 2012

      I am intrigued by the new doctrine of the non binding vote.  As far as I am concerned, a vote in Parliament is a vote in Parliament. It results in whatever action or expression of opinion is contained in the motion approved. As sensible Ministers accepted yesterday morning, Parliament had expressed a view and the government has to live with that result.

      It is true that Mr Reckless’s amendment did not simply  instruct the government to negotiate a cut in the EU budget. It did however call on  the government to seek a real terms cut. It did not specify how large the cut should be nor how the government should try to negotiate it. That was sensibly left to the government to determine, as Mr Reckless was not seeking to oppose the government but to strengthen its negotiating hand. The actual words approved were ” so calls on the government to strengthen its stance so that the next MFF (financial framework) is reduced in real terms”.

        The government can scarcely argue now that just seeking a real terms freeze is sufficient response to the motion as passed. Parliament’s will was clear. It wishes the government to seek a real terms cut. That is exactly what the government should do.  The government put its case as to why it should not seek a cut, and lost the vote.

     The government cannot argue that there was something unclear about the amendment, nor can they say Parliament failed to express its view with sufficient numbers. 601 MPs  voted, an unusually large number. All were whipped to do so. 13 Conservatives abstained. 9 of those abstained on principle, because they did not agree with either the government or the amendment, or perhaps did not wish to vote with Labour on the amendment whilst agreeing with it. 4 were granted leave of absence. Doubtless some members of other parties were also away on approved duties  or ill. A rerun is unlikely to produce a different result or many more voting.

         The government should now draft a new budget proposal which results in a real terms cut. They should then seek to win over other member states to their view. Sweden is already working on cuts to the budget.  Germany is not keen to see spending going up.

          There is another reason why the government should seek to do as Parliament advises. If the government does at some stage agree a budget and a framework with the rest of the EU, it will need Parliamentary approval for the expenditure that entails.  If Parliament is satisfied the government tried its best to get a real terms cut, Parliament may  vote for the money. If Parliament thinks the government did not try or does not like the outcome, Parliament can refuse to sign the cheques, leaving the government without the means to implement its promises to the EU. At some stage the government will need a very binding vote, a vote to approve spending. That is when government and Parliament had best agree. Ministers cannot take for granted the voting of extra spending for the EU after the vote this week. They need to explain that to the rest of the EU. They also need to reassure Parliament that we should vote for the final outcome, because they have done their best to get a deal Parliament regards as acceptable in the circumstances.

                The Heseltine Report “No stone unturned”  was a return to the rain drenched downlands of little Neddies and Labour’s economic plans of the 1960s, laced with that old storm, balkanised England. The Report proudly sets out suggested bondaries for another effort at regional government. I prefer the government’s approach, ending RDAs, regional planning quangos and much of the rest of the panoply of false regional splits in  England. We do not need or want yet another layer of government. We do not want our country broken up  in the way the EU seeks.  Large projects require the national government, smaller ones can be handled by Councils if the public sector is needed at all.

                 Nor are the proposals much more welcome when it comes to analysing their democratic content. The Report recommends taking nearly £50 billion of spending over a four year period and giving it to unelected bodies like LEPs to distribute.  This is money largely at the moment allocated and supervised by elected Ministers.  Businesses are to be encouraged or dragooned into Trade Associations and Chambers of Commerce, who will then speak for them, supply them with services and regulate them all at the same time. The old mysteries or guilds have been long asleep, but this report seems to wish to waken them back into life.

                   The Report throws in for good measure the abolition of all remaining two tier local government, whatever the local preferences.

                    The answer to the UK’s growth needs rests more with tax reduction and simplification,  with simplification and removal of complex and less desirable regulations, and mending the banks.  Changing local government fundamentally, redirecting training and apprenticeship monies, and seeking to give wide ranging powers to unelected regional bodies is not the answer.