I spent my lunch break today reading Nick Clegg’s big speech and dissecting it line-by-line on Twitter. This is a slightly more coherent/elaborate version of that initial reaction.
I guess it goes without saying (and I didn’t say it on Twitter) that the whole preamble about how this is the “biggest shake-up of our democracy since 1832” can be safely ignored. The Channel 4 News Fact Check blog does a pretty good job of debunking that one in a couple of paragraphs. The one part of the preamble that’s worth mentioning is where Clegg praises those 19th century politicians who introduced the reforms he’s referring to for standing up “for the freedom of the many, not the privilege of the few.” One does wonder what his coalition partners think of this one. Anyway, let’s get to the actual content.
The first thing that struck me was this quote: “Britain was once the cradle of modern democracy. We are now, on some measures, the most centralised country in Europe, bar Malta.”
This seems to suggest a dichotomy between democracy and centralisation. It appears to imply that one is the opposite of the other. Now, we can argue quite happily over whether centralisation is good or bad, over whether it’s desirable or not, but I wouldn’t go as far as framing it as the opposite of democracy. Lazy rhetoric, Mr. Clegg.
Here’s another one: “My starting point is always optimism about people. The view that most people, most of the time, will make the right decisions for themselves and their families.” There’s nothing wrong with a bit of optimism or idealism. I’m occasionally prone to it myself. However, at this scale, Mr. Clegg appears to be ignoring a substantial body of scientific evidence. People are not rational, they are bad at evaluating risk, they tend to be fairly short-sighted, and thus rarely make the right decision. If people were rational, economics and psychology would be hard sciences. They are not. The second cognitive error here is the implication that just because I make the right choice for me and my family and you make the right choice for you and yours, those choices will necessarily be harmonious and compatible with each other. They are not. I can make choices that actively harm you and vice versa. It’s not always a zero-sum-game, but a lot of the time it is.
Let’s take the Tory flagship policy of free schools as an example. I may be in a position – both financially and by virtue of my education, qualifications and skills – to get together with a bunch of parents and create our own “free school” where we can have smaller class sizes, better teachers, and get state funding to boot. This may well be the right choice for me and my family. And yet, if I do that, it takes money away from the local comprehensive which may be already struggling, thus further undermining it and the children of the people who don’t have the money, free time or skills to establish a school. So while you and I may both be able to tell which option is right for us personally, where our interests and priorities diverge, we need to use the tools of society and the state to resolve that conflict. I am not convinced that devolving everything down as far as possible helps with that. I think we have choices with regards to what level best to deal with particular issues at, and I am not convinced this government will be making the right choices for the majority of people.
Clegg sets out the actual policy agenda in his speech in three parts: civil liberties, political reform, and decentralisation. Let’s take them in turn.
There is very little for me to say on the civil liberties section. It’s spot-on as far as I’m concerned. It’s rolling back Labour’s excesses in this area: ID cards, national identity register, all of those criminal offences the last government created out of the blue (one for each day they were in office!), restrictions on peaceful protest, etc. In some ways this is low-hanging fruit as Labour’s record in this area is so appallingly poor, but it needs to be done and it’s good to see this work is a high priority. The one additional item on my wish list is the Digital Economy Act, and currently it’s looking quite promising that that, too, will get looked at by some sane people. (Incidentally, Eric Joyce, MP for Falkirk, is looking to pull together a Parliamentary Group on the Digital Economy Act. From what I hear, he’s still short some Tory MPs, so if you have one, drop them a line and ask them to contact Eric. For that matter, drop a line to your MP and ask them to contact Eric, regardless of their party affiliation.)
Next we get to political reform. Nick Clegg would like to drag Westminster into the 21st century. There is a longer and more serious blog post in the pipeline on this, but here are some of my flippant suggestions on how to drag Westminster into the 21st century:

• Let’s start by making sure that there are enough physical seats in the House of Commons for all MPs.
• Next, I propose ditching the shooting gallery.
• Let’s also convert at least some of the 47 bars into creches.
• And finally, we might want to consider doing something about the mouse problem. Maybe get a cat or something.

Clegg’s own shopping list for political reform is slightly less flippant. He wants a proportionally elected second chamber. Broadly I think I agree with that, but would like to see some more detail. (Incidentally, for some really good arguments against an elected second chamber, go read this post by Nicholas. Certainly food for thought.)
Next, he talks about a fixed-term Parliament and the 55% rule. I really like the quote “We’re not taking away parliament’s right to throw out government; we’re taking away government’s right to throw out parliament.” It’s a good summary of the intention, and I have already written at great length about this. For me, the devil on this one will be very much in the detail of the implementation and it could either go very right or horribly wrong. We still don’t have enough information to judge.
Another one under political reform is the power of recall. I am on the fence here, and I asked the Twitterverse to convince me either way. I got a lot of examples of MPs in safe seats who are corrupt, unrepresentative and do not engage with their constituents. I fully sympathise. I am stuck with the right honourable Mr. Nicholas Brown, MP (Lab). I may have already remarked on his record. However, I am not convinced that the power of recall will address the root cause of this issue. The only thing that will is an electoral system which makes every seat worth fighting for. (And here’s a hint – AV ain’t it.) So I’m still on the fence about the power of recall. Nick Clegg does give examples of other countries where this works so I may go read up on those.
Clegg wants to regulate lobbying and make it transparent. Awesome. Go for it. Do it now!
Clegg also wants to get real. To be honest, I prefer my politicians complex. But they rarely are.
I was struck by this: “David Cameron and I are determined to reform party funding.” I do wonder what Lord Ashcroft thinks of it. I suspect that on this one, too, the devil will be in the detail.
Then we come to electoral reform, where the buzzwords are AV and larger, more equally sized constituencies. I have said before and I will say it again (and again): AV is a scam. It is in no way more proportional, it still leaves us with large numbers of votes which don’t count. And if implemented, it is likely to block further reform for decades because “we’ve only just had reform”. Having said that, when the referendum comes, I will be out on the streets campaigning like hell for AV, because scam or no scam it’s what we’ve got and we’ve got to work with that. Fewer MPs/larger/more equal constituencies are not just a scam but a Tory scam. I’m not overly impressed with those.
And finally, on decentralisation, I already said that I’m not convinced it’s the answer to everything. What worries me is that that whole section sounds like Mr. Clegg has swallowed the Big Society hook, line and sinker, and I’m not happy about that. Here is the thing about the Big Society that no one’s actually asked you: If the government cut large chunks of your public services and a small chunk of your taxes, which of those formerly public services will you personally commit to being responsible for and providing? Because if the answer is none – and it is for most people – then there is no such thing as the Big Society. The one sentence that gives me hope is this: “We know that devolution of power is meaningless without money.” The glaring omission of course is any indication as to what the government intends to do with that knowledge.
To sum up (this was only supposed to be a short post): Clegg’s three-step programme:

• Civil liberties: Two thumbs up!
• Political reform: Tell me more.
• Decentralisation: Was he wearing a blue tie?