Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (10 January 2013)

Under the circumstances, I really did feel that I should say something about the government’s report card but, to be honest, I found it very hard to get that excited about something that could only ever be an utterly fatuous and self-serving exercise. Call me cynical, and strangely enough some have, but the sheer predictability of the whole fandango is sufficient to make anyone question their decision to ease off the booze after Christmas. As other tired theatres sweep up the glitter and pack away the pantomime horses and tights, the Westminster players resolutely charge into the new year with the old standards belting out: Government: ‘Fancy that, we’re doing fine!’; Opposition ‘Oh no you’re not!’; repeat to fade as exeunt the audience.

It was at this point that something in the dark recesses of the mind started to protest. This was not a tiresome end of the pier routine – this was something worse. Something worse than all the public money spent and the time wasted not sorting out the deficit or whatever. No, something insidious was at work.

The Guardian, December 14

And the simple answer is that this is yet another manifestation of the utter contempt in which government holds parliament. We have no need of government to issue a report as we have an on-going audit mechanism called parliament, one of whose specific roles is to exercise oversight over government. And they do, pretty well in fact, if only anyone would listen. Just before Christmas the Home Affairs Select Committee released its report on government drug policy, Breaking the Cycle. Much to the surprise of no one outside government and the Daily Mail (note – searching the Daily Mail website for ‘drugs’ can damage your health) the committee delivered a slamming broadside into a policy that has consistently and spectacularly failed since its introduction. This provoked the no-less unsurprising retort from government, ‘We have a policy which actually is working in Britain.’. Quite which policies and which Britain Cameron is talking about is open to question but I don’t really want to get chase the rabbit of legalisation down any (pot) holes; what we need to focus on here is the casual and absolute rejection of a work a year in the making by one of the more sensible select committees in the House. OK, they didn’t do themselves many favours by inviting Russell Brand to give evidence but that aside the report is a considered and sober work that deserves much better than to be kicked quickly and publicly into the long grass. Now no one, I am sure, really believes that David Cameron honestly thinks that "The government, I think, has got a good record on these things and there is some good evidence that drug use and drug abuse is falling" and perhaps behind the scenes someone is doing something sensible and not necessarily submitted to the Daily Mail to be proofed but surely the work of the elected representatives of the people of the UK (yes, even Keith Vaz) deserves a little more respect and time.

In reality, this is just the latest in a long line of slights paid to the nation’s legal sovereigns. Blair made little attempt to disguise his contempt for Parliament, dismissing the report on policy in Sierra Leone as ‘unfair’ and a ‘counsel of perfectionism’; he also had the temerity to declare that parliament was wrong when it defeated his proposed terror legislation in 2005 – this from man who repeatedly circumvented and (allegedly) lied to parliament and yet who was clapped out of the chamber like a rock star on a farewell tour, a man who held parliament in such low esteem that he could not wait to get out of the place, resign his seat and go off to pick up whopping great cheques from finance and consultancy while simultaneously bringing peace to the middle east (mental note to self – check to see how that is going.) Gordon Brown appeared less inclined to dismiss parliament offhand but his performance as chancellor – when he repeatedly refused to appear before select committees, a habit he seemed to encourage amongst his staff – was not exactly without blemish and besides, what with the small matter of vicious internecine cat-fights, the expenses scandal and a minor global economic meltdown to deal with he had other battles to pick. To his credit, it was on Brown's watch that the Wright Committee was called, even if its proposals were fiercely resisted and he was there when arguably the worst speaking in living memory was served his papers and he did do away with those god-awful press briefings (let’s not worry about how much either of the latter two might have been due to respect for parliament - after all, no need to kick someone when they're down.)

And so to Camerclegg. Like Brown, they have a bit too much going on at the minute to be able to establish a consistent rapport with Parliament. The early signs are inconclusive – implement (almost in full) the Wright Committee proposals while being rude about select committee reports but I suppose the depressing question is why on earth would they want to listen to parliament, I mean apart from the fact that they should? What could they possibly gain? Well., there is the respect of this particular correspondent – and with any luck a few more out there – for actually abiding by the constitution but otherwise the answer is precisely not much because parliament’s job is to make things difficult for the government. Not too difficult – this isn’t the United States, after all – and the government’s majority, albeit cobbled together in this instance, does make parliament biddable in the longer run, but just occasionally it would be nice if government were to take something that parliament has made all by itself and like an indulgent parent say something like, ‘That’s nice – I’ll put it on the shelf,’ rather than chucking it straight into the bin, not least as the relationship between parliament and government is not like parent and child where authority flows in one direction in one relationship and the opposite in the other.

Returning to Chris Mullin’s diaries in closing, it is impossible to avoid the sense of self-loathing that laces all of his recounting of the instants when parliament met with government – that is institutional, not personal self-loathing, the sense that parliament debased itself repeatedly and with the bitterness that comes with knowing exactly what you are doing. Like a dumped lover parliament just cannot help but supplicate itself to government, knowing full well that its advances will be encouraged only to be spurned at the death as the government knows full well that all the tears, the renting of garments and the threats of self-immolation are nothing more than desperate pleas for attention – notice me, notice me please! and get me out of this echo chamber so that I may sit with you in paradise.

No, there’s no easy answer until parliament mans up. How do we do that? I don’t know but it could start with the government paying a little more attention to parliament’s reports and wasting less time drawing up its own.