baldysblog.co.uk

In my previous essay, my aim was to show that past major reforms such as Magna Carta and the English Civil War, had specific contexts built around a “group or class” in society acquiring some degree of power that was taken away from the then “Ruling Structure”. However, I also intended to show that that the impact of those reforms and events, took time to bed in and become part of the British Way of doing things, we are an evolutionary country by nature and inclination.

My basic proposition is that our current parliamentary system is coming to the end of its time in its current form and we should start thinking and debating where it should go next. I can offer no “solution”, my purpose is to encourage interest and debate and whilst my personal instincts are to the right of centre politically, I promote no particular party above another in looking at this in fact, I could not do so because they all have vested interests in the status quo which you and I do not.

Renewal NOT Reform

It is also important to understand just why I choose the word Renew rather than Reform. “Reform” is a spiv word beloved of people involved in marketing: “Brand New, Whiter, Brighter, Colour Fast formula…” To reform something is to remake it completely, declare it as something better, new, never been seen before – rather like a teenager discovering sex for the first time. Inevitably people who want to reform things, always make a pigs ear of it all so that it has to be “reformed” all over again, and again and…

Renew on the other hand acknowledges both the importance and significance of the past, tries to hold on to the best of it but is fearless in discarding what is no longer important or useful but in discarding things, does so knowledgeably. The concept of Renewal is one that suits all 4 nations that make up these island peoples, it is a thoughtful, considered and harmonious process that acknowledges the rights of all equally. Also like restoring an old and derelict historical building to it’s former glory, it is done empathetically, takes time, skill, patience and also the ability to see where a newer solution, will fit in well.

No Prescription but, a Starting Point

If a local sub Post Office closes or, a Library does, however worthy both are by nature the truth is that they get insufficient use or custom and therefore the resources involved, staff, heat, light, equipment and so on, are better deployed elsewhere.

At the last General Election, only 61.4% of the potential electorate bothered to vote and we now have a dominant Labour Government elected by only 22% of the potential electorate. On top of that, this Government, elected by less than a quarter of the electorate, wishes to sell us into the bondage of the EU without further reference to us although a referendum was promised at the last election. I understand that the reason referendums are banned in Germany is that this was the key device that Hitler used to get power. The power to negotiate foreign treaties may well need to be removed from the House of Commons for parallel but not the same reasons, a reverse on the situation to pre Hitler Germany.

The 2001 election was actually slightly worse – 59.4% turnout, 1997 – 71.3% (NewLab), 1992 – 77.7% (John Major) and the previous averages since the end of WWII around 75% turnout. For whatever reasons, the House of Commons has lost its appeal and place in the hearts of the people so that there have to be some changes made regardless.

Let me state upfront that I do not see a time when we do not have a House of Commons, a Prime Minister, Cabinet and Opposition. I would go further and say that we should probably retain “First Past the Post” for forming the Government and largely, the Prime Minister of the day retaining the right of full executive powers on Foreign Policy such as declaring war and so forth. Democracy is great but, properly done is inefficient so, the “executive” must be lent the power to react to sudden events that may threaten the well-being of the citizens of the UK but perhaps more directly, also have to answer, after the event.

What I do not see is a House of 640 MPs, we need only half, nor a Speaker elected by MPs voting in the Commons, in these days of the professional politician they have shown that they are incapable of exercising proper judgement. Additionally, just why should the Speaker be an MP and, just why should his/her constituents be deprived of a representative who could stand up in the House and ask questions of the government on their behalf ?

The current Speaker is a very poor fish indeed and should never have been elected to the Office in the first place. It is important to understand that historically, “Mr Speaker” has to be totally independent and the reason he resides within the Palace of Westminster is because it is his job to guard and protect the integrity and independence of Parliament and its members against all-comers and certainly not act as a lackey of the Government of the day as the current incumbent has.

To put it into perspective: If this was the England of the 17^th Century, Speaker Martin would be seen as serving the King rather than Parliament.

The House of Lords Issue

A further proof of the incompetence of the Commons comes from the “On/Off” reform of the House of Lords which runs hand in glove with that other bit of legislation based upon inverted class snobbery – Fox Hunting, a topic which I will return to later in another blog in this series.

Of course the House of Lords except, when they sit as the Law Lords, are a bit on an anomaly but for all that, the truth is that they have been consistently quite effective as a check on poorly drafted legislation and apart from the power of delay or being able to rally public opinion on particular issues, have no real powers and should be left alone. I could but am not going to at this time, write reams on the real and potential benefits of the “House of the Elders”, even, the “village elders” but, the ho, ha generated over “Reforming the Lords”, does provide useful ammunition.

Reform of the Lords has been attempted many times in the last 100 years but has always failed on one key point that comes from history namely, that all power currently rests with the Commons and, the Prime Minister of the day. There is absolutely no way of reforming the House of Lords in any major way as even the most stupid member of the Commons should be able to work out in under 5 minutes unless we were to change ourselves into a Republic and do we (the British people) want that ?

Second Chambers

The whole idea of a “second chamber” is that it is a revising body that is independent within its own right which means, that however limited those rights may be, those rights may not be over-turned by another body which includes the House of Commons.

Our American cousins have dealt with this under “separation of powers” by having two directly elected Houses on fixed terms, a written Constitution defended by an independent and sovereign Supreme Court, a slightly indirectly, elected President who is the “executive” and may only serve a maximum two fixed 4 year terms plus, a 50/50 during the course of a Presidential Term, half the Houses go for re-election. In fact, the American system is brilliant in many ways but, built upon a total disbelief in the integrity of any one person when confronted with “total power” so, no one ever gets it.

In comparison, a British Prime Minister has total executive power, far more than any US President but of course, nowhere near the same resources. On top of this under a parliamentary democracy, all power resides in the House of Commons made up of directly elected representatives of the people and the Prime Minister being the “First Among Equals”, holds all power and patronage.

The very idea of reforming the Lords is a demonstration by the members of the House of Commons of their total stupidity because if it were to be meaningful, it would require some degree of a surrender of powers by the Commons to the Lords or, by whatever name class envy MPs wish to call it – The House of Reform perhaps. Not calling it the House of Lords is the least of the issues but one that rallies fools to a foolish and misguided cause.

However, let us look at this in a positive light:

The Monarch was absolute in all things and then came Magna Carta to limit that.

The House of Lords originally represented those same Barons and Landowners and along came the English Civil War, the end of a King and the establishment of the Commons as the supreme arbiter of all things including it would appear, a “Divine Right to Rule”.

The House of Commons represents the “Traders” and the “corporates” but Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas so, what will it take for these fools to listen this time ? Kingship has passed, Landowners have passed, has the Commons gone the same way too ? Perhaps by giving the rights we loaned them on a maximum 5 year mortgage, to Brussels, they imagine that they have side stepped the issue but they haven’t.

We now need something for us ordinary people that represents what we think or feel, reflects our day to day reality, gives us a feeling that we are being listened to and is probably local. – don’t you think ?