Enough, already

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.