“I hope this is the start of the new politics I have always believed in – diverse, plural, where politicians of different persuasions come together, overcome their differences in order to deliver good government for the sake of the whole country.”

There’s a strain of this sentiment, particularly within the Liberal Democrats who know that they can’t achieve very much alone, but also within civic society.

But if politicians agree, what’s their purpose? We might as well leave it up to the civil servants.

As a start, here are five clear reasons why it’s bad if politicians agree with each other:

1. Less scrutiny. As we will see a PMQs, there will be less scrutiny of the government because fewer voices will be represented during the session.
2. “They’re all the same”. The public already think politicians are too similar. Now if you can’t tell the difference between the Tories and the Lib Dems, what’s the point? And if you can tell the difference at the next by-election, there will be real pressure on the coalition.
3. Less ideology. The politics Nick Clegg espouses surely means that politicians should be driven less by belief (where disagreements are going to be greater) and more by pragmatism. Again, if politicians are just there to manage the country, wouldn’t civil servants to it just as well?
4. More people disenfranchised. With fewer divergent voices, more people will be disenfranchised by the current political parties. Where do you go if you are a Simon-Hughes-Lib-Dem? Labour is too trade unionised, the Lib Dems too economically right-wing.
5. Less political debate. Political debate usually produces bettter policies and a deeper understanding in the country. The more politicians try to seek common ground, the more they will be victims of group-think.

So, no, Nick. The “new politics” you speak of is not inherently better than fierce, passionate political disagreement. A woolly consensus is not what this country needs, given the scale of its problems.

Related posts:

1. Why can’t politicians communicate?
2. 5 better proposals for better government
3. Liberal Democrat hypocrisy: what do they have to hide?

1. Murdoch, Cameron and public influence
Without a majority it will be harder for Cameron to govern so it follows that resistance to changes which makes business easier for Mr Murdoch will be harder.

At the same time Cameron owes Murdoch even more than he would have done with a working majority: imagine the state he’d be in without the visceral support of the Sun. And if Murdoch goes cold on Cameron it will be even harder for Dave.

But it’s also a story of the declining influence of the Sun – and newspapers more broadly. The Sun did not win it for the Tories – nor did any of the mass market papers. They did not even set the agenda for the day. Twitter’s biggest impact on the campaign was breaking the cycle: newspaper frontpage – Today programme – morning press conference – lunchtime news.

So will someone – or something – else fill the Murdoch void or will politics stay trapped in a vortex of decreasingly fulfilling Murdoch-love?

2. Leaders and their parties
In normal circumstances any one of the party leaders had just cause to resign the day after the night before. Cameron because he didn’t meet his part of the deal he struck with his party (change to win). Clegg because his result was the worst in his party’s history. And Gordon not only because he lost but because the local election results suggest that he was an impediment to greater success. Labour did well locally when distanced from Brown.

Clegg now has to take a party whose membership considers itself to be to the left of Labour into coalition with a Conservative party for whom a litmus test of it’s time in power would be a different relationship with the EU.

3. Parties and their resources
There’s no way Labour or the Lib Dems can afford another election campaign any time soon. And big money failed for the Tories – even if Ashcroft was minded to throw more ‘good’ money after bad.

But no party is likely to have the courage to argue for state funding incentives and donation caps – the only viable solution to the status quo.

Can any of the parties fudamentally rethink the big ticket costs of campaigning? Or will they turn to dubious donors or hardcore suppprt with strings-attached?

4. Devolution
The election result was also a story about the fragmentation of the nation. Labour’s failure in England and the Tories north of Watford – excluding posh bits. The answer to this (and inconclusive national politics) is surely devolution to local authorities but with Labour gaining control across London that’s less attractive to the Tories and with local government facing a spending cut anyway, a tough balance for any government.

5. Party Ideology
David Cameron’s inconclusive result may be insufficient for him to break out from Thatcher’s shackles. And for Labour, Miliband and Balls would both be defined by association with Blair and Brown. The election result appears to suggest that Clegg failed to convince people that the Lib Dem’s version of liberalism was not defined by the traditional left/right axis.

But with party allegiances further weakened – and the prospect of electoral reform – the traditional alliances of British politics are under structural threat, not just the temporary inconvenience of coalition.

Conclusion
The tectonic plates of politics move slowly and often take years before the movement is apparent. But they have moved and are continuing to move. The political groupings which understand this best will prosper most.

Related posts:

1. Save General Election night campaign: politicos at their worst
2. If politicians agree, what’s their purpose?
3. The Christian Party: lying or misleading?

The leaflet was branded Hackney News with a red masthead, masquerading as a Labour newsletter. Which is interesting because the last Lib Dem News I saw was in Birkdale where they are fighting the Tories. That leaflet was made to look like a Tory leaflet. Why are they embarrassed about being Liberal Democrats?

The Lib Dem leaflet didn’t make any reference to any of their accomplishments on Hackney council. As the third largest party on the council, that’s surprising. Why don’t they want to be open about that? But perhaps it’s a leaflet focussed on the parliamentary election. So why no reference to Nick Clegg? That’s a shame because I’ve always wondered what he looks like.

The newsletter was informative: it said that the Liberal Democrats have made “four top commitments in their manifesto”. Leaving aside the absurdity of anyone having four top priorities, one of them was “clean, open politics”.

I read the leaflet in detail to discover what they meant by “clean, open politics”. Given that the Lib Dems might hold the balance of power in the next parliament, it’s a critical issue. Will they reveal who they would form a coalition government with? No, not that open.

There’s an article on the second page attacking the bus fare rises in London, quite rightly. The text clearly says “The Mayor of London (Blond Bombshell Boris they call him – ingenious) is responsible for these fare increases.” Odd then, that the accompanying photo sees the  Lib Dem candidates posing with a banner reading “Labour and Tory bus fare increases”. “Honesty and integrity should be a given” writes candidate Keith Angus. Presumably not when there’s an election to be won.

The backpage (alas, there are only four pages) declares that the Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for action on regeneration in Woodberry Down “but so far with little success”. That doesn’t inspire me with much confidence in their effectiveness. Apparently the campaign involved writing an EDM for Diane Abbott MP to table in parliament. “Unfortunately the MP didn’t raise it in parliament, as I’d hoped” says Mr Angus, who clearly does not understand the pointlessness of EDMs nor that they don’t really involve raising an issue in parliament. Because, of course, if he did know that, he wasn’t being open and clean with us.

Finally, there’s a cut out and reply slip at the end of the leaflet inviting you to support the Lib Dems, display a poster (which presumably isn’t red) and join the party by accident if you donate more than £9 (yes, seriously). Only unfortunately the leaflet provides no indication of what they will do with your personal data. Neither clean (it’s against the Data Protection Act) nor honest.

Unfortunately, Mr Angus was  honest on one point: “One of my guilty pleasures is to watch Come Dine With Me on TV while eating chocolate spread, straight from the jar”. That may be honest, but it isn’t clean.

So again, I ask: what do the Liberal Democrats have to hide?

I do believe that the Lib Dems have a useful and important role to play in British politics. But when they behave like this, with low calibre people, it’s a difficult position to defend.

Related posts:

1. If politicians agree, what’s their purpose?
2. The Christian Party: lying or misleading?
3. Defending my political opponents

1. Policy advice to ministers has a presumption of openness

All policy advice to ministers should be publicly available, preferably published online before the minister has made a decision. There will be instances where procurement or national security mean this can’t happen. But as the Chilcot Inquiry demonstrates, even decisions of war cannot take place without openness these days. And (as the better government panel makes clear) the more politicians can explain their decisions the more likely they are to be understood, scrutinised and implemented more effectively.

2. All policy formation should be put out to tender

The civil service must not be the only adviser to ministers. But I understand the complaints from the senior mandarins – that internal competition within government doesn’t necessarily lead to better policymaking. Instead, there should be ‘contestability’ for policymaking so that all policies are developed by at least two different organisations. That level of competition will ensure that thinktanks, academics and civil servants will be better scrutinised whilst ministers will know that they are not being told what they want to hear. And the transparency of the outcome mean that money is unlikely to be wasted.

3. All new organisations or spending commitments should have a 5 year timeframe

Any new organisation or major spending commitment should be created to last five years, with a clear (but small) number of objectives, which can be measured. Near the end of this five year period, they should be assessed by the National Audit Office, the select committee or another external body. They may be allowed to miss their targets but continue – but none will continue indefinitely. For example, if the Equalities and Human Rights Commission cannot demonstrate greater understanding of equality, greater awareness of rights, or landmark legislation to create more fairness, it should be scrapped in 2013.

4. Civil servants should also serve parliamentarians

MPs are too poorly resourced to scrutinise legislation. The House of Commons Library is a fantastic resource, but usually there will be one or two specialists in a particular subject to serve 650 MPs. Select committees are better resourced than before but with a couple of clerks for 14 members, they also have plenty to do. If the policy teams in government departments served parliamentarians (as the representatives of the public) then MPs might be better placed to scrutinise legislation.

5. Annual legislative report

Labour introduced an annual report for government although it was widely derided at the time. The Queen’s Speech could (but doesn’t) perform this role. But if government reported back to parliament on its performance then legislation would be scrutinised on an annual basis according to its effectiveness. A vote on this report would enable parliamentarians to propose particular parts of under-performing legislation to be dropped.

But fundamentally, as nice as these things may be, the core elements of British democracy need to be addressed if British government is to be better:

• the effectiveness of political parties at recruiting and promoting talent;
• the representative-ness of British politicians
• a better balance between central and local government
• the effectiveness and composition of the second chamber

Related posts:

1. Retired mandarins more problem than solution to better government
2. If politicians agree, what’s their purpose?
3. Labour mustn’t falter on party funding

However, I suspected that there was more to the report than that so took the time to read it, half expecting to find that (as they are during the Chilcot Inquiry) civil servants blaming ministers for failings that were actually partly their own. Unfortunately, what I found was a report with too wide a focus to settle upon useful recommendations, some lazy (or dated) unsubstantiated assertions, a lack of historical analysis; from which I could only conclude that said senior (retired) mandarins were part of the problem rather than the solution.

The report was had too wide a focus to settle upon useful recommendations. Subjects such as strengthening parliament to ensure better legislative scrutiny have been comprehensively, excellently and better covered by others – such as the Wright Committee on reforming parliament. Whilst recommendations such as: “Departments should ensure, and Ministers should insist on, consistently high standards of policy formation” lack real meaning.

The lazy unsubstantiated assertions were unfortunate for a report which is largely focussed on ensuring policymaking takes place in a more evidence-based environment. Take the following, for example:

• “The new media, no longer in most circumstances able to offer constructive criticism, required an unceasing flow of media releases.”
• “”Europe has tended to become somewhat marginalised in Whitehall’s thinking in recent years” will be news to those responsible for the passage of legislation on audio-visual material or waste and recycling (to name two areas with which I’m familiar)
• “Focus groups were used heavily, often steered by the pollsters to give the answers which they thought the media or politicians wanted” is completely unsubstantiated which is unfortunate for such a startling suggestion.

Finally, there is an absence of historical analysis which means that it is difficult to identify the root of the problem. If you are going to claim that “no-one should be excluded (from consultation) on the grounds that their views may be critical” surely you need to highlight where this has been the case, whether it was always the case and why it has come to pass. And the critique of the centre producing roles overlapping with departments is important, but in the effort to be apolitical it pulls its punches on why this has happened and whether it’s just a consequence of the creation of the Number 10 Policy Unit. The lack of analysis of the root of the problems is a failing for which the report criticises current policymaking for lacking perspective.

I could only conclude that the retired mandarins were part of the problem: that ministers were right to seek advice from outside the civil service and that the failure to prepare effective legislation was as much a fault of civil servants as it was ministers. For example, the report considered that “The techniques and dynamics of consultation . . . could change dramatically over the next few years through the use of the internet”. Well, if that’s the speed at which good government moves, I’d rather have bad government.

Related posts:

1. 5 better proposals for better government
2. Is the government bullying Fred the shed?
3. Islam4UK:Is the government strategy flawed?