New settlement

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.

Trevor Smith (York, House of Lords): Gordon Brown has presented himself as a Prime Minister who takes the overview, is aware of the forces undermining the unity of Britain and will do something about it with a new settlement, no less. But for all his talk of Britishness and binding everyone together, he seems to be making things worse. Has the government thought through what it is doing with respect, say, to Ireland? It seems unlikely.

Roger Scruton (Wiltshire, philosopher): It is, I think, unprecedented for a PM to make reform of the constitution his first priority on entering office. It is reminiscent of continental politics, in which fragile coalitions, having scraped into office, promptly revise the constitution in order to stay there. I am therefore not happy that this is all happening now - although of course, a debate about the constitution, in which all parties can participate, and the goal of which would be a stable consensus, is very much needed, and Gordon Brown has the knowledge and imagination to lead it.

Iain Kearns (London, ippr):This is a serious and historic drive for reform. The move towards creating a written constitution and the call for a debate on a British Bill of Rights, if driven through, promise to bring a genuine redistribution of power away from the government and towards Parliament and the public.

Reforms to the prerogative powers exercised by Ministers, like the decision on going to war, the PM’s powers of patronage and the strengthening of Parliamentary Select Committees could further underpin a real revival of Parliamentary democracy and cabinet government.

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): I've just read the best article so far on Brown and the constitution. It's written by David Marquand (who has also blogged for OK) and appears in this week's New Statesman. He explains clearly and eloquently why a new settlement with a written constitution is needed. Its refreshing to read something that is clear, fair, far-reaching and best of all puts the radicalism required into its international context. It's not that having a written constitution is so revolutionary. The challenge comes from the fact that Britain's over-centralised state is antiquated and out of date, despite all the talk of being modern. "Brown", Marquand concludes optimistically, "has a chance to build a consensus for democratic change of a kind we have not seen since 1945", noting that if he succeeds "he will go down as one of the greatest reforming prime ministers of modern times." Great stuff. Read it here.

David Marquand (Oxford): Jack Straw's announcement that he is now in favour of a written constitution may mark a historic milestone in Britain's long, slow march to democracy. He is the first British Cabinet minister in history to say anything of the sort and constitutional reformers should rejoice. But constitutional reform must not be the property of any one political party, or even of the political class as such. One of the chief reasons why a new constitutional settlement is necessary is that public distrust of politicians and political parties has reached record levels. The point of a new constitutional settlement is not to put together a series of institutional nuts and bolts. It is to democratise the public culture. That will not happen if the process of reform is dominated - or, just as important, thought to be dominated - by the political establishment. Gordon Brown's approach will be judged in this light.

Pam Giddy (London, The Power Inquiry ): A short time ago, in his first official speech as PM in waiting, Gordon Brown acknowledged the need for the sort of fundamental democratic reform called for by The Power Inquiry. The man who has long lived under the accusations of control freakery went out of his way to stress he wanted to listen and learn – from everyone. He says wants to “change the way we are governed”; lets hope he means it. Too often in the first flushes of power political leaders wrap themselves in the bunting of high democratic principle – “we will listen – we will govern differently – we will learn from our mistakes.” Then all too soon then let us down.

Graham Allen MP (Nottingham & Whitehall): Jack Straw’s coming out for a written constitution (see OK’s scoop below) gives added hope that finally the British political system will be created on a legitimate and understandable basis. One that allows the British people to prise the political rulebook from the grasp of the Executive.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): BREAKING NEWS Jack Straw leader of the House of Commons and Gordon Brown's campaign manager has come out for a written constitution. "I have changed my mind" he told us at the Smith Institute seminar this morning (see note below). It was filled with whitehall suits (and very few skirts) most of whom seemed unable to absorb what he said. Straw pointed out that Labour's reforms over ten years had written down parts of the constitution. Now filling in the dots is "something we have to do". Pam Giddy of the Power Inquiry challenged him and argued that what matters most is connecting any such process with the people through a popular convention. The idea of a convention, Straw responded "was really rather exciting". In his brief conclusion he said he was now convinced a written constitution was needed to ensure good citizenship. Can you trust him? Robert Hazell of the Constitution Unit, acting like a mandarin without a department, assured the room that a written constitution is "no panacea" (personally I have never met anyone who thought it was) and that "I am one of the realists who think we will never get one". That was the voice of the old establishment. But it seems that Gordon Brown has decided differently. You read it here first.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): With perfect timing the Smith Institute has released "Towards a new Constitutional Settlement" a book of essays edited by Chris Bryant, Labour MP for Rhondda. It includes arguments for a written constitution as well as an attempt by Vernon Bogdanor's students in Oxford to codify our existing constitution, a welcome demystification.