Jack Straw

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon) Constitutional reformers are spoilt for choice in Scotland at the moment. A day after the Labour /Lib Dem /Tory announcement that Sir Kenneth Calman will head the Commission to Review the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government has unveiled the second phase of its National Conversation.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Here is Jack Straw's speech on our constitution in full. Its official title is

Modernising the Magna Carta

This defies satire. Tiring of modernising the 20th century and before even they have managed to 'modernise' the House of Lords, they are now modernising feudualism!

Anthony Barnett (London, OK):  According to ePolitix Jack Straw is on his way to the USA and...

Justice secretary Jack Straw visits the US, where he delivers a speech on constitutional issues. "We now need to think very carefully about whether a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities should be a step towards a full written constitution, which would bring us in line with the most progressive democracies around the world," he will say.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): You can tell what Jack Straw thinks of constitutional reform, Trevor Smith told me, from the way he reintroduced walking backwards from the monarch after handing her the Queen's speech. I suspect Trevor was there, as a member of the House of Lords. His scathing remark reminded me of Benjamin's angel of history, propelled backwards into the future, longing to pause and make good what has been done (see comment below). Today, Straw tells Guardian readers that Britain is a much better country thanks to Labour's progressive reforms since 1997. Indeed it is. Many of what some have called Charter 88's demands have been met, and he is right to list them: The Human Rights Act, Freedom of Information, self government in Scotland, Wales and London. Now, the most pressing problem is not the need for the remaining reforms which still await us: a fair electoral system, a representative second chamber, a democratic constitution. It is the nature of the centralising British state that delivered reform despite itself. Its impulse is dangerous for liberty and anti-pluralist and it seems to be getting worse under Brown. In his article Straw endorses the idea that a "quiet revolution" has taken place in "the way we are governed". Really? Just over a month ago he sung a different tune. He gave evidence to the House of Lords Committee on the constitution and told them (opens as pdf),

Trevor Smith (York, House of Lords): I'm concerned – those who want democratic reform in the UK had better get their act together. The emerging picture is that the Brown bounce came from his making the right signals. These included a strong indication that he wanted to address up-dating UK democracy. But it is beginning to seem that the signals were no more than mood music, designed to lull reformers into passivity - more a Blair-type rhetorical flourish than substance.

Gavin Yates (Edinburgh, GYMedia): The Prime Minister's plan to raise the Union flag on public buildings every day will not apply to Scotland, according to the BBC. As part of Gordon Brown’s new wave of Britishness, the PM said he wanted the national flag flown year round on government buildings, and eventually on police stations and hospitals across the UK. His Governance of Britain Green Paper promises a consultation on this. But when Justice Secretary Jack Straw visited Scotland earlier this month he assured First Minister Alex Salmond that the new policy would not apply north of the border, according to an SNP spokesman.

Alexandra Runswick (London, Unlock Democracy):

"We must not lose the opportunity to make further and more fundamental reform happen."

We couldn't agree more Jack and Unlock Democracy for one will be keeping you to that promise to reform the House of Lords. But what did the statement yesterday reveal about the Government's intentions? Firstly that decisions taken by the House of Commons are what matters. The votes in March have changed the political landscape, there can be no going back to piecemeal solutions that will satisfy no-one. The House of Lords can, and in all likelihood will, continue to oppose reform but the indications are that a fourth term Labour Government would be prepared to use the Parliament Act to ensure a predominantly or wholly elected second chamber.

Guy Aitchison (Bristol, OK): Jack Straw today told MPs that the Government was determined to press ahead with Lords reform - though he suggested that nothing would be done this Parliament. Instead a "comprehensive reform package" would be included in Labour's next manifesto based on a white paper to be released at the end of this year following cross-party talks. Although there was strong support back in March for a fully elected second chamber (a majority of 113) today's debate heard from diverse voices reflecting the range of contrasting, and often contradictory, positions. Unrepentant unicameralists, self-confessed "antediluvian troglodytes", impatient democrats - all had their say. Shadow Justice Secretary, Nick Herbert welcomed Straw's support for a wholly or substantially elected second chamber but suggested that the real message was reform "on ice until after the next election". On the other hand backbencher Sir Patrick Cormack claimed to reflect the true position of most Tory MPs when he accused Straw of wanting to "destroy" the constitution. The Lib Dem Simon Hughes simply urged the Government to get on with it. Straw, who has gone from backing 0 to 80% elected in the last five years, added that he was ready to "look again" at the issue of electoral systems and also consider whether ministers should be able to appear in either house.

John Jackson (London, Charter 88): Guy Aitchison may be reading something into Jack Straw's reported remarks to The Times which is not there. A Citizens' Convention of the sort being proposed by Unlock Democracy with cross party support does not exclude or walk round Parliament. Not only would it be created by Parliament but it may well be right for its conclusions to be considered by Parliament before being put to a national referendum. Underpinning representative democracy in this way could play an important role both in the popular involvement in constitutional reform that Unlock Democracy and Power are talking about and in the much needed restoration of confidence in the workings of Parliament that pervades the Green Paper. It would be surprising if Jack Straw is setting himself against that.

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): In an interview in today’s Times Jack Straw promised wide public involvement in constitutional reform but appeared to rule out the prospect of a citizens’ convention to agree the changes. His comments will frustrate campaigners who have called for just such a convention as a way of achieving the Government’s declared aims of restoring trust in politics and strengthening public engagement - not least Unlock Democracy who have drafted a Citizens’ Convention Bill sponsored by MPs from all three major parties, and the Power Inquiry whose 'make it an issue' petition made similar demands. Straw seems to prefer the use of citizens’ juries to discuss a “bill of rights and responsibilities” and a “possible written constitution”, but it is still unclear what kind of binding powers they will have, if any. Surely a citizens’ convention is the only guarantee that constitutional reform will not become yet another top-down, purely consultative exercise. As Paul Hilder puts it below, “do we want Straw to be sole interpreter and summer up?”.

Alexandra Runswick (London, Unlock Democracy): When the House of Commons voted in March for a fully elected second chamber it was heralded as a historic moment for democratic reform in the UK. But where are we now on Lords reform? Jack Straw, who will take responsibility for it as the new head of the Ministry of Justice and Lord Chancellor, gave evidence to the Commons Select Committee on 19th June. He told them he was "absolutely determined" to proceed with reform but thought it was unlikely to happen in this Parliament. A cross-party group of MPs is meeting to discuss a way forward but Jack was hazy about the exact process. There may be a draft Bill, or sections of a Bill or another white paper. One thing was clear; proposals would be brought forward for both an 80% elected and a fully elected second chamber. The relevant minister (him?) will make a statement to Parliament before it goes into recess on the 26th July.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK) I think I have seen the shape of a battle to come - one side personified by Jack Straw the other by Ken Livingstone. Jack Straw is too canny to make it a straightforward contest while London’s ‘Our Ken’ is now only an allegory for radical reform, as he is enjoying it for himself already. But while they may not be personally leading the two sides, they characterise different futures for the British state.

Henry Porter (London, Vanity Fair): I met a Labour MP last night. He said, more or less: I feel that we'll get something from Brown on Parliament and the Constitution, but it will be cosmetic - the limiting, even the end, of the Royal Prerogative; a Parliamentary convention to approve military action but not legislation; something small on Select Committees, but nothing that will actually shift the balance between Parliament and the Executive. No ceding of control over Parliament's Business to a Business Committee; no powers of subpoena granted to Select Committees; no election of Select Committee members or, more important, their Chairs; no reduction of patronage; no giving up control of the Modernisation Committee. Just a few crumbs. Both Brown and Straw are pragmatic Stalinists. They'll keep control.

Jon Bright (London, OK): David Maclean MP's Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill will be debated in the commons tomorrow. The amendment, which would exempt both parliament and MP's communications with public authorities from public scrutiny, is defended, by Jack Straw among others, on the grounds that it preserves the privacy of constituents who have corresponded with their MPs, but has been attacked vociferously by a number of campaigning groups. The Freedom of Information blog, along with many others, argue that the existing FOI act already allows for the exemption of private communications between MPs and constituents, while Mark Fisher MP argues in the Independent that the bill has been pushed through by "procedural sleight of hand", with little real scrutiny. Both argue the real motive is to conceal parliamentary members' spending.

Moderator : Tom Nairn has published a strong warning against a Gordon Brown constitution which codifies in writing the strong, centralised and ill-liberal all-British state. His article, Not on your Life, is published in the OurKingdom section of openDemocracy. Any comments and responses should be posted here.