Constitution

In an extraordinary interview on the Today programme this morning the Prime Minister single-handedly announced the formation of a National Council for Democratic Renewal.

He did so in the way that it takes a magician only one hand to produce a rabbit from the hat. Only his legerdemain is showing.

"I advocated freedom of information twenty years ago and have been advocating the case for a written constitution for some time," he said. Well, no. As perhaps the person who did the most to persuade Brown to embrace the case for constitutional change twenty years ago, in his Charter 88 Sovereignty lecture, and who has talked with him on the topic since and followed his announcements carefully, I know of no instance when he publicly and unequivocally advocated a written constitution, or even ‘the case for one’ (that magician’s positioning again). He often showed a codified ankle to attract the following of those us who found it attractive. But it was flirt.

I always suspected that what he himself found most attractive about the idea was that he might sit down and write it, to be hailed as the father of Britain.

John Jackson (London, Mishcon de Reya): In his post yesterday, Stuart Weir referred to the ruling classes ‘self- defeating insistence on the great merit of a flexible constitution’. That insistence is also self-serving and depends on a strange and disingenuous circular argument.

By definition a flexible constitution contains uncertainties and is not definitively written down. But, say its advocates, we also embrace the rule of law and that does require certainty. And, given that we have a flexible constitution, that certainty can only be provided if somebody has the last word. That is the justification of the concept of parliamentary sovereignty encapsulated in the phrase ‘The Crown in Parliament can do anything it wishes except bind its successors’. Parliament – these days a Parliament which is largely the captive of government – has the last word and can insist on what it wants.

Stuart Weir (London, Democratic Audit): Guy Aitchison's very interesting post on Nick Clegg's speech to mark the publication of Unlocking Democracy, part history of Charter 88, part re-visiting Charter's themes today, focuses first on the dominant rhetorical themes that the ruling classes have used to submerge and disparage those of us who have been seeking democratic reform for half a century now. There is of course the notion of the 'chattering classes'; there is the idea that what we 'chatter' on about doesn't matter 'north of Watford'. There is the self-defeating insistence on the great merit of a flexible constitution, even though it is only the executive that benefits from this vaunted flexibility in amassing overweening powers that allow our governments to blunder on through political, economic, industrial and social disasters. As Nick Clegg pointed out forcibly, constitutional reform is vital to finding ways through the consequences of the series of blunders that have led the country through a new period of gross inequalities and greed to economic and industrial collapse.

Tom Griffin (London, OK): Democratic Audit's new report on the Constitutional Renewal Bill, Beating the Retreat (previewed here by Stuart Weir) was the starting point for a Westminster seminar on Wednesday which brought together parliamentarians, academics and campaigners to consider the government's retreat from constitutional reform.

Tom Griffin (London, OK):At the start of Gordon Brown's premiership, constitutional reform was a major plank of his agenda.The extent to which it seems to have fallen by the wayside was highlighted in yesterday's attack on the Government by his former adviser on the issue, Lord Lester:

He said the government's failures to pursue constitutional reform were "why I decided, with regret, to cease to be a government-tethered 'goat' - that is, one of those flatteringly and misleadingly described as part of a government of all the talents". Lester is understood to be dismayed that Straw has allowed the constitutional reform bill not to find a firm slot in the Queen's speech, and fears the justice secretary is using his plans for a bill of rights and responsibilities to weaken rather than strengthen British commitment to human rights.

The Herald brings us a ray of hope, with a report that at least one profound constitutional change is under active consideration:

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): At the end of last month I wrote a post objecting to a phrase by A.C.Grayling. A written constitution should never  be described as "rock solid" and were it to be so it would be failing its democratic purpose. The slip was twofold, a written constitution can't be rock solid (academic point) but also we should not want it to be (political point).

Grayling did me the great compliment of responding swiftly and courteously on a subject that is a great issue. I then broke the First Law of Blogging NEVER POSTPONE A POST! Many apologies. I am engaged in a new project (more on which anon, I hope) that was intensely distracting at that moment and I wanted to gather my thoughts.

The problem with insisting on the argument is that it runs the risk of the narcissism of small differences, when two figures on the edge of a cliff with a landslide approaching and a storm brewing decide to have a punch up! One of the most striking things about British journalistic and political culture over the last twenty years, that I have become very aware of since campaigning for a written constitution as one of the key demands of Charter 88, has been this. For all the fine words and radicalism, and now even when Prime Ministers talk about the need for a new constitutional settlement, this obvious need is rarely addressed and then usually in passing. The media is part of the political class that benefits from the informal, unwritten order. The need for a proper constitution is passed over, drawn back from, or at best referred to as a gimmick.

Anthony Barnett (London,OK): There was a very odd column by Simon Jenkins in Wednesday's Guardian. He says that we don't have democracy, we still have rule by clubland. Especially when it comes to choosing leaders. He is very much in the club in his own way, but writes as if he is quite untouched by this. He ends with these words:

But then all the constitutional reformers in the world will never persuade me that British politics is not stuck irredeemably in the 18th century.

Well hold on a second! He takes a knighthood but the blade has not touched him? Is he saying that "constitutional reformers" are just fiddling because the whole thing needs to be changed? In which case why did he patronise Charter 88 with his silence when its argument was precisely that the UK was stuck in the 18th century and should not be? Or is he saying that we are so "irredeemably" 18th century that there is no point at all in anyone calling for constitutional reforms? In which case why has he been such a consistent and eloqent advocate of localism, local democracy and the need for more elected officials, which is certainly a much needed constitutional reform.

David Marquand (Oxford, oD author): I notice some respondents to my comment on Glasgow East have queried my statement that the UK was the first modern state. On reflection, I think I was wrong. The Netherlands was the first, I now believe.

As to when the UK achieved that status, I think you can make a good case for saying England and Scotland both became modern states in 1688/9 when they drove the Stuart dynasty from the throne. But I still think the United Kingdom as such, rather than Scotland and England separately, really became modern at the time of the Hanoverian succession - a succession determined by Parliament, remember, not by descent. Perhaps the best date would be 1715, when the first Jacobite rebellion was defeated. Or perhaps you might prefer 1746 when Bonnie Prince Charlie was finally routed. Of course another possible line of argument is that the UK is still not a modern state, since sovereignty is still not firmly located in the people.

Andrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): Constitutional reform in this country is a fitful business. First, the people in charge know they have to respond to the need for change, but they are unwilling ever knowingly to give away power. So their proposals, like Gordon Brown's July 2007 Governance agenda, and Michael Wills's framework for "greater citizen engagement" a year later, are shot through with ambiguity and downright evasion. But there is also a problem with the uncodified, amorphous UK constitution. It is a bit like restoring an old building that has gone through a succession of additions and adaptations. If you can't pull it down, reform projects are bound to be piecemeal and their significance and effectiveness is always difficult to measure.

James Graham (Unlock Democracy): The latest Lords reform white paper is both a step forward and a step back.  It is positive in that for first time ever an official government document is unambiguously in favour of second chamber which is either mostly or fully elected.  It also nails the lie about an elected second chamber being a threat to Commons primacy:

The Government welcomes a confident and assertive second chamber. It sees this as further enhancing our democracy and something that is entirely consistent with the primacy of the House of Commons. That primacy rests in the fact that the Government of the day is formed from the party or parties that can command a majority in the House of Commons. It also rests in the Parliament Acts and in the financial privilege of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister and most senior ministers are also drawn from the House of Commons. A more assertive second chamber, operating within its current powers, would not threaten primacy.

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): The PM has just announced the Government's Draft Legislative Programme to the Commons. We hope to have more coverage on this and PMQs later but on first glance there seems little sign of the bold "new constitutional settlement" Brown called for last July. It appears the Bill of Rights and the citizens summit on the Statement of Values have both been put on hold. The only reference to these I can find is a vague promise to hold consultations on the Bill of Rights which will "give people in the UK a clear idea of what we can expect from public authorities and from each other, and a framework for giving effect to our common values." And expect yet another White Paper on the Lords.

John Jackson (London, Mishcon de Reya & Unlock Democracy): There is an astonishingly muddled article by Tom Winsor in today's Finanical Times on the High Court's decision in the SFO/BAE case. Firstly, he has not grasped that clause 40 of Magna Carta ("To no man will we sell, deny or delay right or justice") was a promise by the king as to how his judges would behave in administering royal justice - hardly a definition of judicial independence, as he claims! Though the promise is, nevertheless, an important component of the rule of law.

Jon Bright (London, OK): As Andrew Blick reported yesterday, the timing of Jacqui Smith's recent announcement of 300 extra terror police was seen by many in the Tory party as a violation of the "Purdah" - which means (in a UK govt context anyhow) the period of time before an election when announcements of apparent benefit to the incumbent are supposed to be suspended.

Andrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): The current controversy over Jacqui Smith's announcement of  increased police numbers - which the Tories are claiming is beyond the pale in the run up to an election - reveals a fundamental tension in the UK constitution. One of the central purposes of any government will always be to get re-elected, and they will seek to use the levers that being in power gives them to stay there - so they have to be constrained somehow if the perception and reality of abuses are to be avoided.

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander made a bold bid to take back the Scottish constitutional agenda on Sunday with the launch of her policy document, Change is What We Do:

Jon Bright (London, OK): Nick Clegg is repeating his previous call for a reform of Britain's political system today, and will apparently describe Labour as "gutless, heartless and incompetent" for how they paid for their inheritance tax cut. He will call for a convention of 100 or so people to debate a reform of Britain' political structure - and wants to propose a £25,000 maximum donation limit. Probably also worth reiterating that at the moment the latest polling still shows a hung parliament. Would Gordon Brown accept the convention in return for a coalition government with Clegg?

Stuart Weir & Andrew Blick (Cambridge & London, Democratic Audit): The latest revelations about the dropped serious fraud office investigation into the BAe-Saudi Arms deal demonstrate the need for the government to pursue its present constitutional reform programme harder and more thoroughly. A number of measures are required. First, the forthcoming draft constitutional reform bill must clearly put a wall (and not a Chinese one) between ministers of the crown on the one hand and criminal investigations and decisions about prosecutions on the other hand. Second, Parliament must be given greater purchase over decisions relating to foreign policy and our entry into international alliances with countries such as Saudi Arabia. Third, the parliamentary export controls committee should be given advance notification of the granting of major export licences, with the opportunity to take evidence on them and report a view. Through these means, if an unpleasant regime working in tandem with an unpleasant multinational company wants to make threats about not cooperating over terrorism, it will have to do so in public to the UK Parliament and electorate, rather than to a Prime Minister who may be ready to "roll over".

Alexandra Runswick (London, Unlock Democracy): Politicians from across the political spectrum are increasingly talking about involving citizens in constitutional reform issues - whether it's the National Conversation in Scotland, Nick Clegg calling for a constitutional convention, or Gordon Brown's proposal for a ‘Citizens Summit' on a British Statement of Values. Constitutional reform in the UK has traditionally only involved the elite; more recently changes have then been ratified by referendum. But the Citizens Summit will be different - an attempt to engage citizens in a deliberative event to explore a constitutional issue - something tried very rarely in the UK.

Philip Hosking (Cornwall, The Cornish Democrat): Jack Straw gave a speech at the George Washington University about the UK's and USA's constitutional heritage and what a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities might look like. The talk was entitled "Modernising the Magna Carta" - full article here.

Jon Bright (London, OK): So what was said on The Politics Show today? I don't know, to put it simply - apparently it was only on in Scotland and the BBC's website, where you will be able to see it eventually, is still only carrying the edition from last week (at the time of writing).