Government

Clare Coatman (London, oD): I went along to Clare Short's Political Studies Association/Hansard Society lecture (full text here) on 'making politics fit for purpose'. I have never warmed to Clare Short, but found myself laughing along with the rest of the audience several times and the lecture was well thought out if perhaps a little 'school-marmish' in places.

Her main aim was to spell out in a definitive way two things: first, that there really is Presidential governance, and second that this creates ineffective decision making. I found particularly disturbing her claim that, "there was never a full discussion of any policy issue with all options considered and a consensus reached in my six years as a member of the Cabinet".

Happy Man: Well, gosh, the Prime Minister has wised up to the tiny amount of UK residents who know what twitter is, and has launched number10.gov.uk, the official website of the Prme Ministers office. Or, as it was apparently billed for a while:

“10 Downing Street website, the official website of the British Prime Minister Tony Blair”

Oh dear. That link, by the way, from Dizzy Thinks, whose comprehensive coverage is better than anything I'll manage. As he hasn't deigned to use a convenient tag, here's the litany of fail:

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Liam Byrne is the Minister of State for Borders and Immigration. Eloquent and presentable, he is according to the Spectator, tipped to become a Cabinet Minister in next month's reshuffle. He's about to publish a Demos pamphlet on 'Refreshing Fraternity'. A trailer has just been published in this week's Spectator. It makes interesting reading in the context of our debate about Labour After Brown. Byrne's is definitely a Labour With Brown scenario. He attempts by seamless legerdemain to magic Britain into being a nation. He sat through the Prime Minister's IPPR speech on citizenship where Brown hailed the country as a pioneering multi-national entity. Byrne knows the reality, of course. This is how he tries to pilot out of it:

Andrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): When the Constitutional Renewal white paper and draft bill were published earlier this year, Gordon Brown once again proved himself the master of the anti-climax. The centrepiece of the Governance of Britain programme to date, and the part of it most likely to be implemented this side of a General Election, 'Constitutional Renewal' primarily addresses the role of the executive with respect both to Parliament and the judiciary. When it appeared there was disappointment that it did not live up to its billing and was not a programme to 'renew' the constitution. As Graham Allen MP put it, 'perhaps our expectations either were raised too high or...those expectations have not yet been met.' More scathingly, Lord (Paul) Tyler has today called it a 'ragbag of retreats'.

John Jackson (London, Mishcon de Reya & Unlock Democracy): The High Court judgement delivered today, that the Serious Fraud Office acted unlawfully in ceasing to investigate an allegation that BAE had resorted to bribery in obtaining Saudi arms contracts, repays careful reading which you can do here in full. It should not be welcomed with enthusiasm by democrats whatever the motives of the British government.

Andrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): The government is proudly presenting its new draft constitutional renewal bill, which Anthony blogged yesterday, as a handover of power from the executive to Parliament.  I hope it is not unduly cynical to suggest that ministers are perhaps willing to put forward this package because they know that MPs can be relied on to do the right thing with their new responsibilities: that is, not much, especially as they are so under-resourced.

Suzy Dean (London, The Manifesto Club): Last Thursday, while visiting George Washington University, Jack Straw declared that the proposed Bill of Rights and Responsibilities would involve a mixture of symbolic and declaratory principles on cultural and social issues as well as justiciable rights.[1] Going beyond the traditional scope of a Bill of rights, such as the US bill which stops at outlining those rights that are political, the impending here is set to build on the Human Rights Act[2] by covering social, economic and environmental rights, along with responsibilities.

David Smith (Weymouth, Saving Democracy): I was involved with Charter 88 from 1992. Although we did our best to engage the general public, we only managed to get a very small minority on board. It was inevitable, therefore, that Charter 88 relied to a considerable extent on lobbying an apparently receptive Labour Party. Labour have since made a number of changes, and have apparently improved the situation in Scotland. But England has not benefited much, and none of Labour's reforms have addressed the fundamental issue of executive dominance of parliament. In fact things have moved in the other direction, in the face of the "War on Terror."