Jon Bright (London, OK): Someone pointed out recently that I seem to begin every post these days with 'I have just come from event X' in a fairly transparent attempt to make myself sound connected and important. One thing that I have picked up while working for OK is the incredible volume of events taking place in and around the Westminster village - and, as a recent student, I must admit the novelty of free nibbles and a nice glass of wine still hasn't quite worn off.
One recent event which slipped past my radar was something I really should have gone to - Anthony King's LSE lecture on Wednesday on the British Constitution. King is touring to promote his new book of the same name, and it sounds like he gave an entertaining history. His point (I'm relying for this entirely on what is hopefully an accurate account by Mike McCartney) seems to have been that since the 1960s our constitution, which had functioned relatively well up until that point, has been changed relatively frequently and in an extremely ad hoc manner - with many of the changes leading to decidedly unforeseen consequences (EC membership, for example, was considered in the early 70s as a purely economic decision). Now we have a situation where our constitution is a "complete mess".
Spot on so far. So what's the solution? Er...do nothing. King wants to let the existing changes "bed down". If parties cannot even agree on regulations for funding, he argues, what chance them agreeing a new constitution? He proposed a Stormontisation of parliament (effectively rubbished by Richard Wyn Jones here) as a quick fix to the West Lothian Question - the rest of it can be left well alone. Which reminds me, for some reason, of a quote from Peep Show series four: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And even if it is broke, just ignore it and maybe it'll be sort of okay. Like the environment."
King's points about the difficulty of the process are well taken - a new constitutional settlement which achieved popular legitimacy would be one of the most challenging tasks ever undertaken by a British government. But if we are so unsure of our politicians' capabilities that it would be a mistake to even try to get out of this "complete mess", then what exactly is the point of them being there?
