Guy Aitchison (Bristol, OK): The momentum behind political reform continues to build. Today I went to the launch of Future Britain, a project established by the LSE to explore options for carrying out constitutional reform. Around two hundred of us filed into a lecture theatre to listen to politicians from Canada and New Zealand and our own Westminster MPs, as well as the "usual suspects" in the form of campaigners, academics and journalists. Arguments were rehearsed on the need for reform, interesting questions were raised on a British Bill of Rights, and we discovered how Westminster, the "mother of all parliaments", has a lot to learn from its far more democratic offspring. But what I was really interested in seeing was the mood among the parties following Brown's proposals. Will the opposition seize the chance to push for radical and transformative democratic reform? Here was a chance to find out.
With Jack Straw distracted in Parliament we had Michael Wills MP speaking for the Government. Assigned to the new post of "Minister for Constitutional Renewal" Mr Wills is someone we're going to be hearing a lot more from in the future. He told us in his rather soothing and reassuring manner that through reform the Government aimed to rebuild trust and foster a sense of British identity, while avoiding the "slippery slope" to plebiscitary democracy. When Wills adopted the ancient metaphor of the "physician" called to heal the body of the state (he rejected "engineers") it betrayed a certain degree of caution and conservatism on his part, assuming as it did a clean bill of health to return to after a bit of medical tinkering. The Lib Dem response in the form of Nick Clegg MP was "bring on the engineers!". Only electoral reform and more devolution, he said, could hope to tackle the "lop-sided edifice" of our constitution and address alienation. Continuing with the corporeal metaphors Tory Dominic Grieve MP warned against throwing out the "baby" of constitutional wisdom with the "bathwater" of decay and disuse. I could feel a tear coming to my eye as I listened to Grieve opine on his "love" for the ancient constitution which has succored and protected us down the ages...
Despite there being very little to disagree with in what each said individually I think that there were still three different approaches to the constitution on offer. This goes beyond the kind of political point scoring we're used to seeing on PMQs and reflects more basic engrained assumptions on democracy, identity and our country's heritage. How things progress from here will be interesting.
