baldysblog.co.uk

With the launch of the Conservative Conference David Cameron with an eye to the current International and Domestic turmoil in the money markets and the state of the Public Finances, wants to set up new structures to monitor both.

One of the people who wrote in to the Telegraph correctly pointed out that there are standing Parliamentary Committees designed to do just this and it set me to thinking. The problem is that today in the world of the professional politician the “context” has changed and it no longer works as well as it did.

The Way It Was

The Parliamentary Committee structures were set up in a world where people had, for want of a better description, “a class based allegiance” that was more important than their party one, indeed the latter was just an expression of the former. If you look at the origins of the Labour Party, that sprang from the Trade Union Movement and was formed specifically to give that movement a single voice in Parliament. I suppose the classic example was the “Lords” where being one of the landed gentry was more important than the ‘party’ you belonged to.

In today’s world of the professional politician, this no longer applies and as one looks at the privately educated MPs on the Labour benches (one expects it of the Tories I suppose), you realise that there is no external anchor for these individuals whether based upon class, creed, vocation or whatever, the ‘altar’ that they worship at is the progress of their political careers which gives their Party Leader great power over them and the Prime Ministerial Patronage, untold leverage.

We Need Some Reforms

I believe that 11 years of Labour misrule has been the very best thing to happen to Parliament in several centuries simply because Blair and Brown between them have so abused its structures and traditions plus destroyed the Independence of the Senior Levels of the Civil Service through bullying that provided we can rescue Parliament from the clutches of Brussels and repatriate our Law Making, we could revive the whole place.

One of the consequences of this period though is the need to further distance one power from another. If being the Chair of any Parliamentary Committee lies in the gift of the PM, we need to proceed on the basis that the members can rather than have been, be subverted by patronage or party loyalty into deriliction of the proper discharge of their duties. As we also do need a major cull of the number of MPs by at least a third, replacing these committees with independent and external bodies, probably does make sense.

The Separation of Powers

When it comes to any constitution, there are a number of key questions to be answered which whilst they may seem academic are in fact not just fundamental but very practical. Answer these and you have not only defined your constitution but also, the limit of actions permitted to any political party or group under that Constitution. For now I will just pose those questions, in another and later blog I will look at some suggested answers to them.

What is the Purpose of Government ?

What is the “extent” of Government ?

What Obligations Does the State Have to the Citizen ?

What Obligations Does the Citizen Have to the State ?

What is the remit of Taxation ?

What ‘Services’ Should Government Deliver ?

What are the Checks and Balances on the Power of the Executive ?

The English Civil War

We have been here before in the Seventeenth Century and the English Civil War between Royalists and Parliament. There were many issues surrounding those events but at the heart of it was Charles the Firsts belief in the “Divine Right of Kings”, that he was appointed by God to rule. His beheading in Whitehall settled that issue and Parliament in the House of Commons, assumed all executive powers.

These events have given our constitution a very odd shape indeed. Because today all executive powers rest in the Commons and are therefore vested in the First Among Equals – The Prime Minister of the day, the “Executive” or Government of the day, has almost unlimited powers. This very fact renders reform of the House of Lords almost impossible because a directly elected second chamber would require the Commons and the Office of Prime Minister to relinquish some of the powers it possesses in order to be effective and that, is just not going to happen.

No Longer A Democracy ?

However, an interesting question has now arisen in the 21^st Century. In Tony Blair and his Labour Party, do we have seen in effect a belief by the Labour Party in the “Divine Right of Parliament” to rule as kindly despots devoid of constitutional process, a sort of second coming of Cromwell’s Protectorate ?

Whilst this may seem fanciful and I only say it because I am Right of Centre, it is not because they do treat the electorate as total fools. The way Brown refuses to acknowledge any mistakes even the most glaring ones and the EU Referendum that never was are just examples of a party that has been in power for far too long.

Democracy consists of a lot more than one person and one vote, it as importantly consists of Institutions and structures that not only guarantee the legal rights of the citizen from being oppressed by the State but, do so in such a way that separates power within governance and limits the power of the Executive.

An independent Judiciary is an obvious case in point. The State may prosecute an individual but the Courts must try that person only with regard to the Law and not the political desires of the current Government. If this was not the case, all such trials would be like the “Show Trials” of the Communist era. From this comes an important point, in order for any constitution to flourish, the people must have absolute faith in the Institutions. A total and unquestionable faith that can be summed up by saying that whilst on any particular issue, an individual may not like the outcome, they have no doubts as to the integrity of the process by which the decision was arrived at.

Constitutional Changes and Law

We have seen over the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty that despite pledges given to the electorate by Labour at the last Election, they have entered into a “Treaty” that changes the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom without reference to the people. As Blair demonstrated with deciding to abolish the Office of Lord Chancellor because of a bungled Cabinet Reshuffle, politicians cannot see the difference between day to day policies and Constitutional matters which describe in principle the relationship between the citizen and the State.

What I describe as the “Court of Runnymede” is a possible solution although it might take 20 years to become fully operational. It would sit as a Legal and Academic body rather than a political one and its first task would be to chronicle our existing Constitution as expressed by Acts of Parliament and the Interpretations of our Courts – a significant task in itself.

Having created a firm foundation for itself, it should then move on to being our “Constitutional Court” with the power to vet, explain and even veto any Constitutional changes proposed by the Parliament of the day. It may even be given the power to hold direct referendums on any major changes.

Parliament Remains Supreme

Parliament would function as it does for legislation on policy and as the sole legislature in the UK may propose any Constitutional changes it wishes and indeed, it will still be only Parliament that can introduce any changes. It is merely the constitutional element that needs referral because it relates to the freedom of the individual and his/her relationship to the State and the Rights and Obligations of both.

What I am proposing is a body which is dedicated to one purpose only Constitutional Law it would not however be a direct equivalent of the American Supreme Court although in some respects, reflect part of its function. Its purpose would be to slow down, delay or cause abandonment of any proposed changes in the Law that would be detrimental to the rights, liberties and freedoms of the citizen.

As for its make up, most likely they would be appointed on fixed terms and be drawn from the Judiciary and Academia primarily but obviously from those with experience of Constitutional Law. Neither a cloth cap nor the ability to ride with hounds would qualify someone for this institution. Indeed and over time this body might be a place that could also award Post Graduate Degrees in Constitutional Law.