Respite
Having blogged against Jack Straw’s travesty of a campaign finance bill, it appears that there is now a temporary victory. As the Guardian reports, and the Spectator expands upon, the Electoral Commission have effectively threatened to veto Jack Straw’s proposals to give the Labour Party an unfair advantage in elections. While they cannot actually block the legislation, they have threatened to stall for so long that they will not come into effect until after the election.
Sphere: Related ContentNo to Kneejerk Justice
Not long after Jacqui Smith declared that the 42-Days detention measure was brought in as part of a new culture of preventing knee-jerk legislation, Jack Straw… puts through knee-jerk legislation. After a ruling by the Law Lords last week that the present witness anonymity rules jeopardise fair trials, Mr. Straw has decided that the best response is to rush through a Bill that risks being poorly thought-through, failing to adequately address the issues at stake, and filled with unintended consequences.
The reasons for doing so are perfectly understandable: the ruling risks undermining numerous trials that rely on the testimony of anonymous witnesses. The police consider it vital for convicting gang members, drug dealers and murderers. Their case is admirable, but so is that of the Law Lords. It is fundamental to a fair trial to be able to face one’s accuser; to be unable to do so moves the burden of proof away from the prosecution. The defence, unable to cross-examine the credibility of a witness, have to disprove their testimony. In so doing the presumption of innocence is removed. Moreover, the psychological effect of witnesses giving testimony anonymously prejudices the outcome of the trial by implying that the accused is violent.
In these cases the ability to get witnesses to come forward needs to be balanced against the right to face one’s accusers. The Law Lords felt that this was not occurring. The Government’s response should be to take this move constructively and create a law that deals with this serious problem. The concern that the system could allow for a miscarriage of justice is genuine: emergency legislation will not alleviate it. The best solution would be to have a free vote on the matter to ensure proper scrutiny and discussion of what is a particularly difficult legal conundrum. Parliament lends itself towards this solution: the Commons is filled with lawyers, and their expertise, scrutinised through various readings and checked against the expert opinion of those in the Lords, could produce a sensible law. The debate should be constructive and beyond party-political lines. The legislature moves slowly because justice must be deliberate.
More haste less speed.
Sphere: Related ContentJack Straw Undermines the Political Process
The latest response by Labour to Lord Ashcroft’s fundraising for target marginals has been a grossly biased fundraising bill proposed by Jack Straw. The most offensive of these proposals has been the banning of any spending by candidates other than during an election.
On the face of it this would not seem too bad. However, when you discover that an MP will be granted ?10,000 in the form of a “communications allowance” it starts to look bad. As Iain Dale highlights, candidates in marginals have to spend a large amount of their own money on campaign expenses and activities, and this measure tips the balance in favour of the incumbent. Sitting MPs have the upper hand in terms of funding, media access and recognition. Cutting off funding until the election period will put challengers at even more of a disadvantage. The incumbent will have just a few weeks to challenge someone with four years’ exposure and the backing of the Westminster machine.
This is damaging to democracy. By banning challengers from promoting themselves or their views, the ability to have proper political debate at the constituency level is crushed. It will further centralise politics, confining debate to Westminster. Candidates will no longer be able to offer constituents alternatives and keep MPs on their toes. Local communities will suffer as a result of this loss of accountability.
Given the importance of marginal constituencies in any election, we can assume that local parties will obey the letter but not the spirit of the law. Funding will be driven underground. Loopholes and workarounds will be exploited. Publicity will be generated by other means. Parties will start financing candidates without announcing their candidacy in public. The resulting disaffection when these practices are discovered will damage the overall political process.
More importantly for Labour, this is also not in their long-term interest. There is a possibility of a Tory landslide at the next general election. With the advantage given to the incumbent, the possibility of Labour regaining power four years later diminishes. What looks good to Labour now may come back to haunt them when they are sitting on the other side of the Commons.
David Cameron’s response leaves something to be desired. His proposal to limit individual funding strikes more of making Labour uncomfortable about its union backing. It is a pointless exercise as they will never accept a measure that makes them bankrupt. Cameron should rise above Straw’s gerrymandering and propose a sensible and measured alternative. That would show up Labour’s unprincipled opportunism far more than any tit-for-tat amendment.
Sent from my BlackBerry? wireless device
