Constitutional Reform

Constitutional reform we need:

• A referendum on EU membership
• The wide spread introduction of Caucuses and Open Primaries so that constituents can vote for the Person and the Party of their choice
• The introduction of the Right to Recall MPs
• An immediate review of the electoral boundaries and sizes so that constituency sizes are made more equal.
• An elected Second Chamber
• A reduction in the power of the whips
• A transparent, workable expenses system
• An answer to the West Lothian question
• A Minister answerable to the House of Commons for every single department and QUANGO

Constitutional reform that would be useful / welcomed:

• Fewer MP’s
• Parliamentary terms lowered to a maximum of four years
• Annual referendums to consult directly on certain issues
• The ability to petition Parliament when a public petition canvases sufficient signatures

All of the above would help towards securing a return of Parliamentary supremacy.

What we don’t need.

• A vote on changing the voting system just as Labour are about to head into oblivion

Should We Look To Have An Elected Upper House? - Part 1

Part 1, The 1911 Parliament Act

With a lot of talk of constitutional reform pinging around the world of politics and the blogosphere I thought I would take some time and make the case for an elected second chamber. This needs to begin with a look at the why the Lords has limited its role in the twentieth century, chiefly the 1911 Parliament Act.

There have been advantages to having an unelected second chamber, and there has been some level headed debate and opposition in reining back on big swings of legislation that came from the House of Commons that were unwise and or poorly constructed. This has become the role of this chamber – to be to revise and advice on legislation submitted from the commons. The argument has been that the unelected Peers will not act in a populist manner, and have protected conventions and the Crown. However, that argument is still dependant on the Lower House being prepared to listen to such revision.

The Upper House though has been weakened over hundreds of years, and subervance cemented ever since the 1911 Parliament Act which asserted the supremacy of the House of Commons by limiting the blocking powers of the House of Lords. This act has affected the way this country has been governed ever since and put nearly all control of our affairs in to one House – the elected house. Parliament was designed to operate as a Bicameral Legislature with the executive drawn (and accountable) from within.

The notion and theory behind Bicameral Legislatures has grown over centuries and there are many examples in history and worldwide of legislatures are more agreeable to the people when it’s legislation is enacted upon with the benefit of the pause, second thought and active revision; and I would add split representation. There also tends to be a trend that in Presidential systems, and systems where the executive is separate from the legislature to two chambers of the legislature, these tend to have roughly equal or counter balancing powers between chambers. Whereas Parliamentary systems, where the executive is in the legislature, one chamber tends to have much greater controls and powers that the other.

Originally most power of Parliament and was in the Lords, but over time, with reforms of the electoral system and occasional unrest power has shifted away from the nobles and the majestic to the peasants and common folk, especially since rotten boroughs were eliminated and 19th Century reforms that allowed more and more people the right to vote. In the last century the power has shifted further towards the commons. In this time whenever the Lords has made challenges to the Commons authority it has eventually been beaten, and often subsequently had yet more control taken away so as to not allow it the ability to block. Such measures have tended to be popular at the time as it is held up that the undemocratic House is blocking the democratic part of the Government.

The evolution of the role of the office of Prime Minister and of Cabinet Government had gently nudged power away from the Sovereign and increasingly the cabinet was being drawn from the House of Commons. Only since Pitt had the need for a figurehead co-ordinating cabinet government been recognised and operated in such a manner, but by 1911 because of gradual constitutional reforms and in broad communications methods and with the requirement to solicit a mandate from a much wider electorate it was expected by the public that the leader of the majority in the House of Commons to execute Government policy as mandated via General Election.

The aforementioned 1911 act was a response to events of the previous two years. At the time the Lords was dominated by Conservative Hereditary Peers, but the Commons was in good balance with and the Liberals had tended to return a good number of seats in the Commons. In 1909 the then Liberal chancellor David Lloyd George had proposed a budget which was named the “Peoples Budget.” The headline of this budget was the introduction of the Land Tax which was targeted at wealthy land owners and was an obvious and deliberate attempt at wealth redistribution. However, The Conservatives argued that the budget would be very detrimental to industry and proposed tariffs on imports [Conservatives were promoting protectionist measures to so as to protect their own wealth]. The budget was blocked by the much larger Conservative majority in the House of Lords, a great many of whom were directly affected by the Land taxes.

The Liberals were clearly upset at a financial bill being blocked in the House and were more in touch with public opinion and built upon the unpopularity of the House of Lords in the January 1910 General Election and promised to reduce the powers of the House of Lords. The Election returned a hung Parliament which allowed the Liberal Party to form a minority Government with the Labour Party and the Irish Nationalists. The Lords finally accepted the people’s budget, but despite the recent election victory the Liberals still had to drop the Land Tax to ensure its passage through the Lords.

The Liberals floated proposals to limit the influence from the Lords, which proved very unpopular. So Herbert Henry Asquith took his case to King Edward VII and requested that the King create sufficiently new Liberal peerages to allow his Lords reforms to be passed. The King refused and the Lords voted down the 1910 reform bill.

Asquith did not relent. King Edward VII died in May 1910, and George V agreed that if an electoral mandate was achieved and the Lords attempted to block again he would create hundreds of Liberal Peers to neutralise the Conservatives in the Lords. So Asquith went to the country again, and won, and was able to secure his mandate and formed another minority government.

It was still a tight vote but the 1911 Parliament Act was eventually passed which secured the supremacy of the House of Commons. The provisions under the act prevented the Lords from blocking any public legislation approved by the House of Commons and imposed a maximum of one month delay on any money bill (where taxation is concerned) and a maximum blocking time of two years on any other bill. The Commons Speaker was empowered to designate what bills were Money Bills, and if the block had not been resolved within that month the bill could be sent for Royal Assent without approval from the Lords. On other bills, the Lords could only be circumvented if a Bill passed the Commons three times, though there was a required lapse of two years between second and third readings. [Blocking power was further restricted in the 1949 Parliament Act]

The Lords retained the power to veto a bill in the 1911 Bill that prolonged the life of a Parliament, however the Septennial Act 1715 was officially amended so as to restrict the maximum length of a Parliament from 7 years to 5 years. The Lords also retained the nominal power to veto any bill that originated from the House of Lords and also on any bill that attempts to extend the length of a Parliament.
However, this whole act and tipping of power was enacted as a temporary Bill with this very key preamble:

Whereas it is intended to substitute the House of Lords as it presently exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation.

So the 1911 Parliament act, which is intended to allow a majority Commons force enact legislation as a temporary measure until the House could be reformed soon after with an elected chamber. This means that 98 years ago, it was agreed by the Lords to do away with hereditary peers.

So why have we not progressed to an elected Lords in the last 98 years? I don’t know, but it is clear that with the reduced power in the Lords, and with the power at hand to the lower house to amend by act of Parliament the Upper House we have, to an extent adopted a unicameral Parliament. This has largely suited the Governing Parties of the last 100 years, but has slowly taken away the some of the required checks and balances that protects a nation’s population and makes effective the legislation possible. Sure the Lords is able to offer some control and advise in terms of revising laws, but it has no real powers over the Government or the House of Commons.

If there was an elected Upper House, with its own elected mandate, legislative equality could be restored to Parliament, and the balance of power and potentially the way the cabinet functions would need to be addressed. There is the potential to have checks and balances put in place that would represent and defend people. I have some ideas for this and will share them at a later time.

I should also say that the reasoning behind much of the reforms I have read about I think I would have backed at the time, as each was based upon strengthening the power to those elected and ensuring passage of popular law. However, the chief failures of Parliament today stem from a centralisation of power. Instead of centralising power, I think we should look to widening and expanding the elected part of Government, so that power can be more evenly distributed - though not by extending an all ready over packed House of Commons but by reforming the second chamber that can hold the Commons to account.

Should We Seperate The Executive From Parliament?

I have been thinking a lot in recent weeks about how I would reform Parliament and Government if I were in a position to do so. I have lots and lots of ideas; too many I find for me to coherently set them out in a reasoned and sensible way. My brain now seems fit to burst, and it is clear that I will never get the time to write up a super post about all the ills of Government and how potentially to fix it.

So I thought I would set out some arguments for feedback, not necessarily because I am advocating all of them , but because they are worth debating and thinking about.

So, #1 point I have been thinking about is whether or not it would be a positive step to a more representative democracy to separate the executive from Parliament.

In my thoughts, the executive would still be accountable to Parliament, on the whole, but would instead operate independently and would not sit and participate within Parliament. We would all vote on an executive leader, but as they will not be a Minister, so would not hold the title of Prime Minister. Let’s, for now use the term Chairperson, although I do not like that title. The Executive functions and responsibilities would move from the current office of Prime Minister, to the new Executive leader, and the Legislative responsibilities and functions would transfer to the Majority leader in the House of Commons.

The elected Chairperson and Deputy would appoint a cabinet. Their purpose and function would be to execute the departments of government and exercise the law as set out by Parliament. As the Chairperson would be elected and not the head of the majority party, they would need to be elected by a vote of the entire UK (or what is left of the UK post devolution). I would argue that any candidates for such a role would have to be stronger than some people who have become Prime Minister in the last 100 years.

It would also require, I think an elected upper house in Parliament, but I want to write a separate piece on that… If possible, could you envision that as part of the changes bringing the executive out of Parliament.

Positives:

# The Chairperson of the day has an entire country from which to select suitable candidates from for cabinet positions, not just those who have a current seat in Parliament.

# Cabinet appointments would need to be scrutinised by Parliament and confirmed by act of law.

# The current situation see’s a large number of Ministers of various levels voting in Parliament, there is very rarely any dissent or opposition voiced to Government motions. By removing the executive, many more people’s MP’s would be [more] free to debate on a wider range of issues.

# The Chairperson and Deputy would be subject to a ballot of the entire UK, rather than being the leader of the party with the highest number of seats. This is giving people votes on the executive function. We would never again have a situation whereby the PM has not been elected directly.

# The Executive could potentially represent a party in contrast to the majority seated in Parliament.

# By separating the Executive leader from the Legislature, we have a more effective separation of powers that limit the power of one individual. As such, the effects of a megalomaniacal or ineffectual leader are reduced.

# The removal of the Government from the legislature would remove, at present 32 Cabinet members. As such, there are 32 constituencies on the UK where the current MP will not dissent or argue against the Government Position.

# The Executives primary function would be the execution and enforcement of law. Thus, potentially a reduction laws, or clarification of laws would be sought from Executive consultation.

# I would suggest that the Executive would require a VETO before laws are signed by their branch (before moving on to the Queen) – such a VETO, like in the American model could then be challenged by an over-riding vote, where an increased majority in both Houses of Parliament would be required.

# The VETO could protect people from laws being passed that favour the Legislative Branch.

#Equally, the override vote would require an increased majority of both houses of the legislature, as such should safely ensure that any issue that is popular can still be passed.

# As a possible idea, instead of the Queen reading a Government prepared speech at the state opening of Parliament, perhaps the new Executive and possible even the majority leader could deliver a speech to the Queen on the Legislature agenda for the following year.

# We will have a Supreme Court from October this year already, so potentially the Judicial Branch is near enough established.

Negatives:

# The Prime Minister is currently accountable to Parliament both at law but through weekly scrutiny at PMQ’s. Despite an executive being elected, it could become more remote between elections.

# A separate Executive could circumvent current protections guaranteed by Parliament – Executive Fiat could lead to poor and unaccountable governance.

# If we make such a radical change now, could a precedent of radical change be made which may in the future allow for changes to be more regularly being made which in turn could lead to less democratic controls? This would be a danger in the absence of a codified Constitution...

# ...Do we really want to go down the route where we may need a Written Constitution?

# The Executive could eventually be held up as a challenge to the Crown rather than a defender of it.

# At present somewhere in the region of 75-85% of laws are passed over from the EU. Perhaps that is the problem and a massive repatriation of powers to the existing structures would provide the restoration of democratic accountability so many of us crave.

Like I said at the beginning I am not advocating anything more than the extension of some debate, and in the scheme of how such radical changes would be wide reaching, I am undecided.

Obvious flattery aside, I have a pretty intelligent readership, so feel free to run with your thoughts and feedback in the comments. There is much not considered in this short post, and much that can be added.

Cameron Should Call For Motion Of No Confidence

In 1979 the 351st early day motion of the 1978-79 sitting of Parliament was tabled by the then leader of the opposition Margaret Thatcher calling on a motion of no confidence in the then Prime Minister James Callaghan.

When a successful motion of no confidence is tabled, one of two things must happen, either the Prime Minister resigns or the Prime Minister dissolves Parliament and calls for a General Election. If David Cameron was to call for a motion of no confidence in Gordon Brown when Parliament resumes after Easter, The Prime Minister would be forced to dissolve Parliament and call for a General Election.

It has become clear that Gordon Brown is not going to call an election this year, and that he is going to put his own personal ambitions as Prime Minister before those of the country and of The Labour party by staying on. In the next year with Brown at the helm we know that the country which is already bankrupt will be forced into absorbing even higher rates of state spending, and massive tax increases to pay for them. We will almost certainly be paying a visit to the IMF with the indignity of asking them to fill our begging bowl so that we can continue the profligate dissipation of tax payers money on an exuberantly bloated Public Sector.

In a years time there will be at least 60 additional Labour MPs in marginal seats, possibly more, who will not be returning to Parliament becuase of a delay in an election, they probably know who they are. It is those 60 who will be losing their jobs and the Liberal Democrats who will join with David Cameron in bringing motion of no confidence. The country can not afford to have this government continue in power any longer. We need a responsible government that will take control of the public purse and restore confidence to the City of London.

We need people to take risks and to reignite the entrepreneurial spirit that seems long forgotten in the UK. We need small businesses hiring people and supporting other small business and we need big business exporting to countries that are cash rich governments in Asia such as China. As there is little in the way of manufacturing targeted business grants and specialised educational and apprentice programmes are a must. All of this cannot be delivered by Gordon Brown. Everyone outside of the cabinet and the BBC news editorial team has lost confidence in his leadership, many of us had no such confidence in the first place.

When Labour came to power, they cried "Education, Education, Education". Yet through incompetence rather than by design we learn that the 6th form budget for next year is £60m light, and that the Learning and Skills Council had knowingly issued false assurances over provisional budgets. A 4% educational budget cut is looming and a key initiative, that of the introduction of Diplomas which rival GCSE's and A levels may now be shelved.

When this Labour Government cannot even get its numbers straight, and is basically misleading the educational establishment about how much money there is, we are all in trouble. If Labour cannot find the money for its #1 issue, how can any of the public sector be sure they will get their budgets? No doubt a shortfall in Teacher or Nurses pay will be the pretext in a dash to the IMF, with the argument being it is that or cut essential services.

When the Conservatives have made the case over the years for public sector cutbacks they have always, always met the same calls form the Labour benches. Which essential services will the Tories cut? How many nurses and doctors will need to lose their jobs to pay for Tory tax cuts? How many heart machines will that tax cut cost us?

Labour has through the incompetence of Ed Ball's department opened up an open goal for the Conservatives. We now need to cut the size of a Public Sector that can no longer be afforded.

There will be massive support from the country to right now bring an end to this horrible abhorrent, scandalous sham of a government to an abrupt conclusion. This blogger thinks that Mr Cameron needs to do this for the good of the country. We are scheduled to have elections soon anyway, lets have the election everyone wants.

Go for it Dave.

Internet Censorship

Is the blogosphere being Censored?

In recent days a number of blogs have been "taken down". So far, I can see that Tractor Stats and Electro Kevin have disappeared. Thanks to the comment thread on the post by Obnoxio I have learned a few things about what has been potentially going on.

This article shed some light on who may be behind this.

If we are not free as bloggers to express our opinions and art on the Internet then there is (yet, another) severe problem with our "democracy" in the UK.

In these two examples it isn't blog posts that went missing, it was the entire blog. There are other blogs and other platforms, just because expression is not free, it does not mean it will not be seen and heard.

Freedom of Speech is protected in the Magna Carta and by the UN under article 19 of the international covenant on civil and political rights. I can not know what the stated reason is for these blogs having been taken down, but the reason had better be good or TS and Kevin will have grounds for a counter action. They may also, if they haven't already wish to read this.

For Tractor Stats fans, his work is also showcased here.

Tractor Stats & Electro Kevin will hopefully be back on new platforms. Guys, email me when you are and you will have a link from this blog.

Weekend Reading

Learning a little more about the British Constitution

Guido has found something odd in the banking bill. Guido asks if this the Government trying to hide the fact that it will be printing bank notes faster than Mugabe. Having read this, I am wondering if we there will be any checks left that the notes are being printed by the BoE.

Daniel Hannan says Labour has spent £43m preparing Britain to join the EURO.

and bad news for families being reported at the Times.