John Jackson (London, Mischon de Reya): In the current issue of Prospect, Philip Collins and Richard Reeves assert that “Labour is failing to win-or even to grasp- the big political argument: how to ensure people are in control of their own lives.” From that starting point they take their readers on a journey that ends with the conclusion that Labour has a stark choice-it must abandon its liking for central-state diktat and either liberalise or die
They signpost the journey with, for example, references to the dangers of the Fabian brand of “mechanical socialism”, Labour being heir to another tradition too, "Radical liberals, seeking to provide the conditions for people to live flourishing lives of their own choosing, having driven many of the social advances of the 20th century” and "Unless there are strong arguments to the contrary, power should reside with individuals."
It is very striking that the article does not recognise that ordinary people are entitled to decide for themselves how they should take control of their own lives. In essence it is a discussion of what a political party should do to “give” ordinary people such control in pursuit of its own opinions and interests. That is something very different and is an affront to the notions of personal liberty and human rights.
This goes to the root of an increasingly serious problem. The political parties have acquired a large amount of unconstitutional and unaccountable power. Their grip on our electoral arrangements coupled with the whipping system and the payroll vote have destroyed our system of representative democracy (so that it is neither representative nor democratic) and reduced Parliament to a role largely junior to that of the Government.
The inertia built in to this situation is such that we must accept the political parties as a permanent element in our lives-perhaps as one of the “powers” that need to be recognised and kept “separate” from the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.
That could not happen-directly or indirectly- without a new constitutional settlement which guarantees democracy and human rights and which sets out clearly the powers and responsibilities of the different levers of state. And that is where the ordinary person should come in. “We the People” have the right to exercise our ultimate sovereignty by actively participating in (and finally approving by referendum) the creation of such a new settlement.
If the Labour Party really wants to embrace radical liberalism that is an idea it should breathe life into. Having done so it should have the wisdom to stand back and not attempt to instruct the rest of us on how we should exercise our rights and freedom. Perhaps Collins and Reeves would like to think about this.
britologywatch said:
Fri, 2008-05-30 08:31Any new constitutional settlement would have to also deal with the 'national question', i.e. at the very least, the powers to be exercised by national parliaments in each of the UK nations (including in England), the relationship of those bodies to the UK parliament and executive, and the degree of scrutiny of and control over those national parliaments. Failing to factor this in just maintains the pretence that national-level governance is still a unitary phenomenon in the UK, which it is not.
And this relates to another issue: why is it just the state versus the individual? What about other levels of government / self-government, including the UK nations but also communities and local areas? If you just 'devolve' everything to the individual, what kind of cohesive society do you think you can build?