Today, to mark the return of MPs and Peers to Parliament, Democratic Audit have published a satirical pamphlet that sets out to describe how our unspoken constitution would look if actually put to paper. Below, Stuart Weir presents the Preamble, and Stuart Wilks-Heeg explains both the historical and the contemporary context of the project: 

Earlier this year Graham Allen MP made some very good jokes in a speech, suggesting how an honest constitution would describe the way we are governed. He inspired me to a brainwave: why not write an ‘Unspoken Constitution', as if from our political masters, as a satire on our inefficient and undemocratic governing traditions and rules?

Fortunately I was able to draw on the knowledge and ideas of friends at Democratic Audit - openDemocracy's Anthony Barnett among them - to hone down the weaknesses and contradictions of our constitutional arrangements to their paradoxical bones. As I wrote, I became more and more astonished at the arrogant complacency and ignorance not only of our rulers but of the whole political class - and yes, I do mean civil servants, the media, most academics as well as leading politicians- over what is in essence a rotten caricature of democracy.

The paradoxical bones? I think Article 3 of the spoof constitution best illustrates what I mean:

Government, like every subject, shall be free to do whatever is not unlawful. The government shall decide what is unlawful.

You can read the whole document, The Unspoken Constitution, here at OurKingdom, or view our site at Democratic Audit, but here as a taster, is the Preamble...

Proponents of constitutional reform will be cheered further by the headline results from the latest opinion poll. The findings provide a number of interesting insights to inform OurKingdom's discussion on Real Change and possible strategies for democratic reform post-expenses. As with other recent surveys, YouGov's poll for the Fabian Society, released today, has been reported as offering further evidence of the public's desire for change. The results also suggest that among voters in Scotland, the part of the UK which has experienced the most far-reaching constitutional change as a result of devolution in the late 1990s, there is a particularly strong appetite for reform of the Westminster system.

Based on an on-line survey of 2000 adults from 1-3 July 2009, the polling produced four key findings which reformers will want to highlight. First, only 46 per cent of UK voters say they are satisfied with ‘the way democracy works in the UK' (if this sounds surprisingly high, it is worth noting that satisfaction levels with UK democracy were 30 percentage points higher that this in the late 1990s). Second, a majority of those polled do appear to feel that the current crisis represents a significant opportunity for reform: 54 per cent agreed with the statement that ‘this is a once-in-a-generation chance for a major overhaul to improve our democracy'.

Third, the poll suggests a similar majority in favour of citizens, rather than politicians, being at the vanguard of reform: 52 per cent say they would prefer reform proposals emerge from a citizens' convention, compared to just 19 per cent in favour of leaving the task to MPs. Fourth, there are some strong indicators of the types of reforms which the public would be most likely to favour, with at least half of the respondents prioritising both fixed parliamentary terms and a more proportional voting system from among a menu of reform options.

The Local Government Association (LGA) has published a remarkable pamphlet to coincide with its annual conference, taking place in Harrogate this week. The glossy, professionally-designed eleven page document is what we've come to expect from local government these days. It is the text which is surprising. The pamphlet is written with a passion, immediacy and radicalism unheard of in local government circles since the days of Red Ken's GLC, David Blunkett's Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire and Derek ‘Deggsy' Hatton's Militant resistance in Liverpool. Even the title of the pamphlet - ‘Who's in Charge? A Manifesto for a New Politics' - is reminiscent of the language associated with the radical localism of the New Urban Left in the early 1980s. Much of the text could have been borrowed, with minor modifications, from David Blunkett and Keith Jackson's (1987) book: ‘Democracy in Crisis: The Town Halls Respond'.

As such, established local government commentators will recognise that there is nothing particularly new in the demands made in the LGA's manifesto. It advocates rolling back the unelected Quango state; radical decentralisation to bring decision-making down to the lowest possible level; making local NHS bodies accountable to the electorate; a genuine power of general competence for local government, and real fiscal autonomy, including returning to councils the power to set local business rates.