Failing to ask for a dissolution of Parliament in 2007 has implications for the powers in the hands of the Head of State. Like the rest of our Constitution those powers are remarkably ill-defined formally yet most believe they are understood clearly. But in truth the contention that ' the Constitution is what we do' could not have greater support than the equally important decision by the Queen not to dissolve anyway the Parliament that had been installed in 2005.
When we vote, we vote for our local representative, and we vote on a Party manifesto. We vote too beyond our local representation, with the choice of who will implement our preferred manifesto in the forefront of our minds. While the choice of Leader is not ours unless we are party activists, conferring the office of prime minister is ours. And it's no good pretending that ours is not a 'prime minister as president' system; it is. Only an utterly inappropriate candidature in our own constituency would put voting for the individual member rather than Leader, Manifesto and Party in any other order. (Agreed, after the last few weeks of staring at the open sewer that is pouring through Westminster the individual candidate's ranking might move forward though).
So the decision not to mark the end of Blair's premiership by making 2007 the full term of the 2005 Parliament - even though Leader, Manifesto (for a new vision, everything changed, was to be set out), and Party (in that the party had not been consulted), were altered, was of the highest political order. Yet the monarch did not take the only decision that could return to us the power we had conceded to our now defunct government and would lead to a consultation with the whole country.
Whatever advice was taken, whatever precedents were cited for a change of administration in previous Parliaments, the unprecedented combination of profound change in leadership, manifesto commitments and lack of party democratic selection should have warned her that this Parliament was over. And just as importantly, political decisions of this order have long been considered a power of the people, not of the hereditary head of state. Indeed, it is a crucial part of our ill-defined constitutional settlement
Two fundamental shifts occurred: we have now a regime that is 'within the rules' but outwith the political, democratic reality. And we have a a head of state with real powers and no real constitutional controls.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I am sorry but I don't agree.
We the electorate elect our delegates (not representatives), whom the Queen then summons to form a parliament. It sits for five years, or until the Queen dissolves it, either at the request of the PM, or (theoretically) on her own initiative.
The person most likely to be able to command a majority in the House of Commons is then appointed by the Queen as Prime Minister. He or she remains in that post until they resign, or until (theoretically again) they are dismissed by the Queen, the appointment being in her gift.
In the event of a resignation - such as Blair's (or Wilson's) - the Queen will send for the next person most likely to be able to command a majority: Callaghan then, or Brown now, and appoint that person as PM instead. There is no obligation to dissolve parliament at that point. The delegates elected remain elected, the parliament is still valid, and its business can continue. Unless the Queen decides otherwise.
Party considerations such as manifestos etc, are later accretions which do not change this process.
Much as you may despise Brown (and I share your view), he is and remains legitimately the Prime Minister of the Kingdom. Nothing need change until he resigns (unthinkable), or is dismissed by the monarch (almost unthinkable), or the term of the parliament is up, which is by far the most likely limit to his term.
It's shame and a horror, but the constitution has not been violated.
Bernard Crick once handed back my essay and asked me, quite kindly for a naturally waspish man,
"How old are the books and papers you have been consulting on the British Constitution?"
(And our constituency member is not a delegate, Anon. It's rather important to your understanding of how it all works that our constituency member represents all of the constituency electorate, whether they have voted for her or not. She cannot be 'delegated' to represent any particular interest, not formally anyway, although of course Members, and particularly Labour members, do just that and answer to their orders from the central Party. Democratic centralism is live and well under Brown and New Labour.)
Post a Comment