Enough, already

Wednesday, 3rd June 2009

The Spectator on the calls for constitutional reform

The next few days will serve up plenty of reminders that this country does not have a written constitution. As the plotters decide how best to move against the Prime Minister, they will not be operating within any defined framework of rules to select a head of government. Rather, they will be muddling through. There will be much comment about the residual power of the monarch — notably, her ability to dissolve Parliament. But the Queen is wise enough to appreciate that for a modern monarch to exercise these prerogatives would be to ensure their rapid abolition.

It is tempting to say that the coming turbulence shows why the United Kingdom needs a written constitution. But there is no inherent logic in this siren argument. If there is to be a third Prime Minister during a parliamentary term — something that has not happened during the modern era — then that Prime Minister will have to prove he can command the confidence of the House. If he can, he can govern. If he can’t, he will have to go to the country. This is how it should be. This is, after all, a parliamentary not a presidential system.

British democracy is at a low ebb. Polling data shows that more than 80 per cent of voters think that MPs put their own and their parties’ interests ahead of those of the country; that three quarters do not trust MPs to tell the truth; and that 46 per cent think that half or more of those who sit in the Commons are corrupt. But the idea that these numbers are a result of some constitutional failure is a convenient bromide served up by politicians who are keen to shift the blame.

1 | 2 | 3 Next page

Chris B

June 6th, 2009 1:11pm Report this comment

Separation of the executive and the legislative functions through an increase in number of independent members of parliament would help. The potential weaknesses of faction or party based politics have been well were identified by the framers of the US constitution - nothing much has changed. MP's moral failings are human - the constitution should seek to abrogate them, expecting MP's to suddenly become 'moral beings' is unrealistic idealism,

Chris B

June 6th, 2009 1:30pm Report this comment

Separation of legislative and executive functions is needed - would more independent MP's help? The framers of the US constitution recognized the potential pitfalls of factionalism - and nothing much has changed (although the dangers have become ever clearer in both the US and the UK). Constitutional reform is needed - MP's won't become 'moral' by wishing it so - the people need an ingrained suspicion of the motives of those who seek to govern and the protection of a suitably sceptical constitution.

Kered Ybretsae

June 7th, 2009 5:14pm Report this comment

Well the DisHonourable Delboys and Delgirls MP's are all a bit shaken. This will only be the end of a political era, when and if a new system of 'unfiddlable' expenses is drawn up. Not from these fiddlers on the rooftops of Parliament but from an Independant ungetatable, corruption-free group of men and women outside of politics. These people will have a huge responsibility to restore faith in a disgraced and rotten political system. It has been rotten and corrupt for years but only now we have (for how long) a free press that has published and damned and disgraced a whole generation of MP's.

Post comment