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.
"With the record I've had in the past I'm the best person to clean up the political system," he told Today’s listeners. "The clean up of the political system is best done by someone who's got a clear idea of what needs to be done and I have".
This is not how constitutions are democratically reformed.
To justify himself, Brown told us, “What I wanted to do for some time, I actually set it out in 2007, that major constitutional change is now necessary.”
This is a reference to the first speech he made to the Commons as Prime Minister. This is its conclusion:
“I propose that we start the debate and consult on empowering citizens and communities in four areas…. In Britain we have a largely unwritten constitution. To change that would represent a fundamental and historic shift in our constitutional arrangements. So it is right to involve the public in a sustained debate about whether there is a case for the United Kingdom developing a full British Bill of Rights and duties, or for moving towards a written constitution. Because such fundamental change should happen only when there is a settled consensus on whether to proceed, I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice to lead a dialogue within Parliament and with people across the United Kingdom by holding a series of hearings, starting in the autumn, in all regions and nations of the country, and we will consult with all the other parties on this process.
So the changes that we propose today and the national debate we now begin are founded on the conviction that the best answer to disengagement from our democracy is to strengthen our democracy. It is my hope that this dialogue of all parties and the British people will lead to a new consensus, a more effective
democracy and a stronger sense of shared national purpose.
No such debate was started, Brown bottled out of it and Straw seems to have been totally opposed. Gordon had his chance. He knew what was needed. He didn’t deliver. Furthermore, he had grasped the two points that are needed for deep reform: a) an open debate, that b) leads to some kind of consensus (it does not have to be ‘settled’ in my view, but that’s another matter). Neither are on offer today.
Of course, it is excellent that a Prime Minister is putting the pedal to the metal on constitutional reform. Even if it is a desperate measure to see off a Cabinet revolt by creating momentum for change he understands better than them.
But there are various things we need to be clear eyed about.
Historical claims to virtue on the issue. Evan Davis asked Brown about the McBride affair to try and test the PM’s claim to moral integrity that supposedly gives him the legitimacy to lead us into the promised land of constitutional democracy. It was shocking, Brown said, the man did wrong and he went. But were you surprised, Davis tried to ask, about the behaviour of someone who was among his closest aides. Brown dismissed this. McBride was “history”.
But, it seems, history is to be insisted upon when it tells the story you want people to hear - such as his own valiant attempts to reform the system that he has been struggling to persuade us to see as important.
OK, if we leave the sheer selectivity of this approach, there is the actual history of Brown’s struggle to bring us democracy. He lectured us on liberty and then smuggled in his support the management of identity, meaning the state managing our identities for us. He promised a legal approach to national security threats and then attempted to force through 42 days detention without charge.
Just take the latter example. The proposed law, which was Brown’s personal invention, was an outrage that undermined habeas corpus and a tradition of liberty that traces itself back to Magna Carta. Some constitutional reformer! To its lasting shame the House voted for it. In the debate the Labour MP Diane Abbot made a speech that signalled quite openly how Brown had undermined the Commons:
People have been offered Cuba, and no doubt governorships of Bermuda have been bandied about. Any rebel backbencher with a cause is confident - if they vote the right way of course - that the prime minister will make the statement, give the money or make the special visit. That is humorous, but is it right that our civil liberties should be traded in such a bazaar? Is it appropriate or right that we should trade votes at the United Nations on the basis of such political pandering?
The speech was widely republished. The important point is that no one with any authority rebutted her description of parliament as a bazaar. The Speaker of the House did not reprimand her for bringing the Chamber into disrepute, the Prime Minister did not issue an official denial, the whips did not demand she retract it, the Labour Party did not threaten to discipline her. No parliament or assembly that believed in itself would have permitted such a description made from its own chamber to stand so unchallenged. Instead, it became a welcome moment of truth. Now we can see that it was Abbott, not Brown, who spoke for Britain.
When he tells us that he is shocked by what he has learnt and always wanted the Commons to be reformed, we should recall he exploited it as a bazaar. No self-respecting reformer is likely to be taken in by such a poor conjuring trick.
I could go on. But just take the name, National Council for Democratic Renewal. Britain is not a nation. It is a multi-national entity. Scottish opinion outside some narrow Labour and Tory circles is likely to be affronted by any attempt to railroad it into such a body. Brown will be aware of this, in part; it is a sign of his desperation that he will risk losing the support of his homeland to retain office.
Comments
Of course Brown’s claims to having led the way on constitutional reform are fraudulent and his National Council is a cliché. What was also shocking-if-not-surprising in his interview was the assertion that getting the constitution fixed, along with pulling Britain out of the financial hole he drove us into, were the twin jobs that he intended to get done before the next election – so ducking calls for a general election before next May whilst informing us that he, G. Brown, already knew exactly how these tasks would be accomplished in 11 months. Since there is very little Brown can do about the economy other than wait, we must fear that ‘doing the job’ will involve asking a committee of friends to design an exceedingly quick and opportunistic fix – a new quango here, some consultation there, more broadband and more rules everywhere, all mixed up with a good dose of Presbyterian conscience – that can be dressed up as constitutional reform. In fact, isn't the real challenge to keep the momentum for profound reform slow, thoughtful, open-minded, and comprehensive?... which means keeping it away from party fixers and vested interests. It doesn’t matter, I think, quite how long it takes, provided what comes out of the process is worth the wait.
You should nothing to do with this nonsense from this increasingly silly man. The Constitution is not a play thing for him - or indeed his 'mates' - to mess around with when the going gets tough. We have had quite enough of the Labour Party and its quick fix solutions which have created far more problems than they have solved. I am surprised - Most surprised - that you even give this ridiculous idea the time of day.
Having seen Harman v Paxman a little earlier I am forced to reach the conclusion that there has been almost no (if any at all) disccusion about this National Council thingy.
Harman was sounding like she had been handed a scrawled post-it note with the basics, and was making up the other half on the hoof.
When Paxman asked who would be included, it sounded like the council would be a subset of the cabinet, together with some close allies, and the bit about 'engaging with the public' felt very much like an also-ran, only added because someone asked.
My concern is that a plan like this, sprung on an apparently unsuspecting cabinet, is likely be seized upon as 'the answer' with no real motive beyond trying to look good.
I don't remember seeing a copy of this great plan, either. Has it been written? Is it new, or has it been lurking in a corner, waiting for its big moment?
Quite so DW. The whole thing is 'back of fag packet' stuff which is par for the course. Exactly what happened with expenses and Gordon the Morons YouTube performance. These people are so arrogant that they feel there is no need for a cross party consensus on these mattters. There should be a properly constituted conference which is not packed with Labour placemen nor with Charter88 folk. The Constitution is not as 'broken' as many are trying to make out.
Despite the fact that a lot of sense was talked by the participants, Helena Kennedy, Douglas Carswell, Caroline Lucas and Norman Lamb, I was left uneasy by yesterday's event. Gordon Brown's back-of-the-envelope 'National Council for Democratic Renewal' is a transparent fraud and no real reformer should have anything to do with it. But reformers have to come up with a credible alternative way of making this a bottom-up process. I don't think a randomly selected set of jurors is the right way to go. Constitutional reform is complex stuff; the record since 1997 shows that most people who were doing it didn't understand it, starting with Tony Blair. In the 1990s this whole area was dominated by wonks and think-tankers, and we don't necessarily want to return to that. The present crisis gives an opportunity to enable popular engagement at the grass roots, but that doesn't bring the solutions any closer. There is a risk of confusing democracy with cheap populism. A written constitution isn't a work that starts with a blank piece of paper; it has to start with what's in place already and be tackled by people who have some idea of how the present dysfunctional system works. Reform can be incremental and step-by-step (I don't believe in the Big Bang theory of constitutional reform) but it has to be based on historical knowledge. Otherwise we end up like Tony Blair who made the humiliating discovery that he couldn't abolish the Lord Chancellor overnight.
Owly: "The Constitution is not as 'broken' as many are trying to make out. "
Aren't you being a mite technocratic? What has been broken is trust which in an uncodified constitution like ours is the basis of legitimacy.
This is why John M is wrong. There has to be a single big process. Not a 'bang' but a new settlement, created with a S African style participation.
Anthony, I think John M's sense is mostly right, but I agree with you that incremental reform is no longer possible. By definition, it comes from inside the system, which is fine if the system contains enough principled people who, as John M says, understand the history. But if they don't exist any more, what then? Maybe we really do have to write something from scratch and from the outside.But I really don't know what a 'bottom-up process' or participation would look like here, today. We shouldn't confuse drafting with consent, and it seems to me drafting comes first and should be left to the people who know and are nominated on some fair representative basis. It's worth remembering that the German Grundgesetz (in unique circumstances of course), was drafted in two weeks and adopted within 9 months. I don't imagine (maybe Mr Brown does) working at that kind of pace, but it can be done....
As I've said on countless occasions, Gordon Brown and his chums are not the people to deliver a new constitutional settlement. They never were, and they never will be because they are self-serving control freaks.
As Anthony says, it has to involve the people.
Peter: Well, drafting does not have to be done first. There are a set of problems and we can work through them while retaining the existing system. For example, regions? Yes, no, and if so how? (My answer, give everything that currently exists power to merge or disaggregate with a referendum process, so if towns and counties want to form a region they can negotiate this and the powers that would be shared and put it to the voters. I've written about the Lords elsewhere. We need an intelligent release of energy and power
Anthony: perhaps you're right, but it's a difficult one. The issue, I think, is not the answers as such, but what process stands the best chance of finding good answers. Proposals for change don't stand outside the constitution, but presuppose a constitutional process which they join and in which they can be understood and acted upon. This process can't operate in the bankrupt centre and the woeful general level of education and interest in our constitutional arrangements means it won't come from 'below'. This situation will take years to change. Having the wise and expert write a blueprint to be discussed and modified and voted on can be done in months and need not be driven by government and populism.
When are you lot actually going to realize that a written constitution is not some sort of magical solution to this or that. I would have thought that you would all understand, given the disasters we have had in the constitutional area over the last 12 years, that this complicated topic is not to be messed about with lightly. If you are serious about the topic, and are not using it merely to entrench a certain view of society and the role of government (I suspect this is a driving force as so many of the voices are of the 'left') you would start by addressing the errors of devolution (ie the West Lothian question), the Barnett Formula, etc. Then you can move on to the election of the Lords and repeal of all the Parliament Acts to restore the Lords powers to pre 1911 status. Then you can look at reducing the size of the Commons to 400 and reducing the 'pay role vote', together with increasing the power of select committees. That will do for a start. But remember all these things could have been done properly in the first place over the last 12 years.
I trust that any renewal ptoposals will be done within the compas of our Full membership of the European Union and its Constitution and not under the influence of UKIP,BNP and other fringe parties.
I was speculating about GB's take on the MP's expenses scandal when he said his parents generation would be shocked at the scale of the abuses because of their (Presbyterian) beliefs about the nature of serving in public life. It's interesting to speculate on a psychological level why it was his parents' sensibilities, rather than his own which he felt needed aired. Why was he not shocked and did he not realise that many in the country a lot younger than his parents generation also felt shock and a sense of deep disappointment at the sheer scale of self interested money grabbing and questionable morality of his peers. Begging the question - to what extent is his self-professed 'son of the manse' identity a vestigial one and how far has he departed from that value base ?
Post new comment