The hollowed-out pumpkin that is the office of our country’s head of state has been displayed fully in the last week.
The Prime Minister has offered his resignation in the Trimdon Social Club.
The Labour party has designated the incoming prime minister.
The date of the handover has been fixed in private discussion between members of the Executive.
Bearing in mind behaviour exhibited over the courtesy of wearing formal dress at formal and official dinners, the chances of the kissing of hands and acknowledgement of higher authority are poor.
All powers denominated Crown prerogatives now rest with the Executive and, more specifically, with the prime minister of the day. What and who the prime minister answers to is no longer a Constitution, or its custodian the Head of State.
It is 30 years since the office of head of state showed any signs of constitutional life. Discretion is a virtue but this obscurity veils powerlessness and inaction while our Constitution is lopped of its limbs, and our liberties consumed.
Nor is it a Parliament to which the exercise of power is answerable, when the majority party is responsive to particular organisations and interest groups with their own objectives and factional discipline, rather than answerable to the whole electorate, and to those too who are without a vote.
The respect for the Crown even now connects to the mystic notion of powers devolved from God. More importantly the immense regard in which the present monarch is held has been cynically appropriated to project an emotional narrative of safety and security in the enjoyment of our lives.
Monarchy, constitutional or no , lies uneasily with democracy. So now we are faced with government by an appointed prime minister, an appointed countrywide nomenklatura , unchallenged in office and in power by the undefended and severely damaged permanent constitutional structures of the state.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
The separation of executive and legislature has been slowly eroded - we need that separation back!
And who or what can return it to us Ed?
A government elected on that manifesto or a military coup.
I'll opt for a general election and a manifesto committed to returning democratic governance (which is not going to be a simple return to the staus quo ante).
If it has to get physical then I'll join a riot, or even a revolution, but no more coups here, military or the kind we're suffering now.
Total nonsense - 5 out of the last 7 Tory PMs were not initially elected to power - and were selected by a variety of mechanisms (the men in dark suits remember them). Labour does it for only the seceond time - and it wasn't exactly kept a secret and known about before the last election - and it is the Labour Party you accuse of destroying democracy. You may not be right of centre but you are prejudiced against the Labour Party.
The only Conservative prime minister not elected to power by the electorate in the last 30 years is John Major in his first administration. And he was the outgoing prime minister's nominee. If you believe that Blair regards Brown as his nominee you probably believe all the other lies Blair has told for all these years.
And if you support the disgraceful cabal that has hijacked what I assume to be your party I wouldn't be in the least surprised.
And if you believe Thatcher went of her own free will, rather than being removed by a cabal - you probably believe in fairies as well. And if you think the Crown had any say in the matter over 30 years ago you clearly have no knowledge of history.
You may not like the British Constitution as it has stood for many years (and quite frankly - but to accuse the Labour Party of destroying it rather than operating within it - is complete nonsense.
I have argued that the head of state is no longer carrying out the functions of a head of state in a European, representative pluralist democracy.
I have argued that the Executive which is sustained in the legislature by the Parliamentary Labour party is dismantling personal, civil and political liberties enjoyed for centuries and formerly sustained by a Constitution that this Executive is engaged and committed also to dismantling.
I have argued that there must be a different perception of political activity and intention than that used until a decade ago and still practised by many political commentators, for it leads to an obfuscation and a misunderstanding of what is happening.
I have argued that the Labour party is an anomalous structure in the canon of a political party in a pluralist democracy.
Commenters here have disagreed with parts of these arguments, or indicated that I might have chosen more telling examples, with knowledge, informative contribution , humour, kindness, and invariably with courtesy.
Your comments misrepresent what I have argued, set up absurd aunt sally targets then pass them off as my view, and use dismissive and patronising language.
Furthermore many are deeply ashamed of what the Labour party has allowed and continues to sustain.
Sheesh, that TBNGU character's got all of a twitter. Doncha just love it when they take that "You silly little girl" tone?
Hello Lilith, At least hips don't lie.
Never patronise a woman who is doing the ironing. A matchless activity for giving mindless attention to detail while leaving lots of space for planninng the destruction of pests in gardens and elsewhere.
Mentioning your garden and its new fence to Mr HG who gardens a lot, he said he was going to have a look at it on your blog, but I discouraged him. The only bit on gardens is quite far back I said.
It's you who attachs labels such as "destroying the UK" and "dictators and their nature" to their posts and then tries a bit a righteous indignation when people respond in kind. If you don't want "dismissive and patronising language" in return you should lay off the hyperbole.
You still haven't addressed my central argument that the Labour Party in changing leaders has just used the constitution in the same way as the Conservative Party for many years past. The Head of State in the UK has never carried out the functions of a head of state in a European, representative pluralist democracy - and if he/she did they shouldn't be selected by the hereditary principle.
There are many good arguments for changing the UK Constitution - but blaming the Labour Party for acting within it in this regard isn't one of them. There are also pretty strong precedents for saying that major changes in the Constitution should only be made with the prior approval of electorate. Chamberlain, Eden, Macmillan, Thatcher and now Blair have in effect been forced out by their parties and replaced without a General Election - the only difference that I can see is that Blair announced he was going before a General Election - there is a stronger argument to say that to call a General Election now would be unconsitutional and eroding our Constitution.
Slug control is now in use.
Loving the slug control :-) There will be more on the garden anon HG..
Hey TBNGU - have you forgotten that Tony promised to serve a full term? If it was the Labour party ousting him then that's one thing but he has deliberately chosen to go now - two years into a parliament.
Post a Comment